Re: [wg-c] new TLDs

[Harold Feld <hfeld@mediaaccess.org>]

The fact that we cannot do all at once does not mean that
a few limited ones aren't worth trying.  Although I'd use all lower
case (just for ease of typing), I think .GmbH is probably a good
experiment.

I do disagree with what I perceive to be Martin's approach to
selecting registries/registrars, which I take it to be to present a
total "bid package" in which the prospective registry would
pitch its best case for the right to have the TLD to ICANN through
some as yet undetermined process.  I think a more objective
selection process, such as auction or lottery, is probably better
at this stage and will minimize accusations of unfair conduct and
manipulation. (*Perception* of fairness is often as important as actual
fairness in securing buy-in, a point ICANN has consistently failed to grasp).

HArold

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> > >But I object to generic words being assigned a priori meanings and
> > >limitations in the domain name system.
> >
> > What is your objection to .GmbH?
>
> .gmbh is but one form of corporation in one country.
>
> Under the rubric you put forth we'd need here in California alone TLDs to
> cover non-close for-profit corporations, close for-profit corporations,
> non-profit/public-benifit corporations, non-profit/charitable
> corporations, general partnerships, limited partnerships, limited
> liability corporations, sole proprietorships, etc etc.  We'd also need
> categories for corporations chartered by special acts of the legislature.
>
> And then we'd need 49 more variations for the other 50 states.
>
> Then we'ed need to cross-matrix that for corporations that are 501(c) tax
> exempt.
>
> And then we'd need a third dimension about whether they are publicly
> traded and on what exchange...
>
> Then we'd need to do the same for every country in the world.
>
> Then we can start out building a TLD taxonomy for non-commercial entities
> - we'd need a .christian, (do we subdivide that into .baptist, .catholic
> etc?), .mormon, .hindu, .islam ... even perhaps .scientology
>
> What you are doing is isolating one attribute of an entity from a vast set
> of ever-changing attributes (even corporation status can change due to
> mergers or divestatures or simply reformations.)  And then that single
> attribute is elevated above all others and made permanent.
>
> Personally, I feel that top-down chartering of TLDs (as opposed to brand
> building of TLDs) amounts to a quasi-government sponsored label.  It is a
> situation ripe for the development of unnecessary bureaucracies to ensure
> that labeling is "proper" and a situation ripe for abuse, such as payments
> or other compensation for a candidate for inclusion into a prestigious TLD
> to slide past some bothersome fuzzy areas.
>
> I'd leave certification up to certification authorities.  And I'd leave
> the legal liabilities of mis-cerfification to those same certification
> authorities.
>
>                 --karl--