Re: [wg-c] new TLDs

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> > > Your proposal for a .BANK tld is an interesting idea, and one
> > > example of literally hundreds of possible applications of new
> > > tlds.
> > Does this include savings and loans?  Credit unions?  Investment banks?
> > The US Federal Reserve?  My stock brokerage offers many bank-like
> > services, so I guess they can be a .BANK too.  What about food or blood
> > banks? How about SoftBank?  How about a web site on how to bank billiard
> > shots?  And we can't forget the man who broke the Bank at Monte Carlo or
> > the booksellers on the Left Bank in Paris. Nor should we forget about our
> > friend the Piggy Bank.
 
> I am afraid facts are different. The word bank is defined in all
> legislations where you would trust a bank. A company is either subject
> to a given nations' banking law and watched by the central bank, or it
> is not.

Tell me, is Credit Union at which my wife has a checking account, a
savings account, several credit cards, several loans etc a "bank"?  (Hint,
it's not one under California or US Federal law for some purposes, but it
is lumped with other "financial" institutions for other purposes.)

And is Charles Schwab, a brokerage house, where one can obtain several of
the same services also a "bank"?

And then let's look at Wells Fargo Bank, clearly parts of it meet some of
your definitions, but then again, it has several parts that don't.

And there are lots of things that will meet your definition of a "bank"
that are so specialized and limited that from the point of view of just
about everyone but their customers they are not a "bank" as that term is
commonly used.

At this point the use of the word "bank" as a TLD becomes no use at all to
help inform the outsider about whether something does or does not offer
banking services.

And it is my understanding that we are proposing using the TLD to add
semantics to help the *user* of the name.  Presumably a bank already knows
that it is a bank and does not need to refer to its domain name to refresh
its memory.



> This is about as objective as any criteria can be. There are, 
> moreover, established frameworks: SWIFT, the Bank of International 
> Settlements, national and international Bankers' associations. And
> central banks publish the data on their banks.

Fine, let the "bankers" get their own coined TLD name (or better yet a
SLD) and set up their own acceptance criteria, enforce it, accept the
liability for it.  We don't have to do it for them.

Indeed, in this country we have trade organizations that have established
umbrella terms, coined words like "Realtor".  That's their business.


> To conclude, chartered TLDs for the banking industry would be 
> precisely the monopoly buster you (as defender of individual's
> rights, as I understand) should be interested in. SWIFT is one 
> of the monopolies. Have a look at their web site (www.swift.com).

I conclude the exact opposite, if we charter .bank then we set ourselves
up as the monopoly body to decide who is and who isn't a bank.  If we let
somebody else coin a non-generic word like "cross-of-gold" and set their
own membership criteria, accepting whatever liability ensues, then fine.

It's not our role to get into the business of categorizing.

		--karl--