Re: [wg-c] new TLDs

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> > 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.
> 
> Um, Earth to Karl, that is precisely the proposal at hand...

Clearly you haven't been reading closely.  The difference is between
ICANN/DNSO imposed charters on gTLDs and letting TLD operators freely
attempt to select criteria, if any, and, if they feel like it, to try to
build a meaning.

The former approach is Internet Governence writ large. It implies a
certification authority to say who fits and who does not, and implies
liability to ICANN for errors.

The latter approach is nothing more than a standard private efforts at
building a brand.  The operator can set and change whatever criteria the
operator wants, is liable for his/her own actions and decisions.

If somebody wants to run a TLD that excludes those who offer explict sex,
fine, let that be the business of the TLD operator to figure out who is
acceptable and who is not.

ICANN should not become the adjudicator of who fits into categories and
who does not.

Nor should ICANN continue to make gifts of worldwide TLD monopolies that
will make the operators of these TLDs as wealthy as NSI has become.

	--karl--