[wg-c] Chartered TLDs

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> Behalf Of Kent Crispin
> Sent: Friday, December 24, 1999 12:31 AM
>
> On Wed, Dec 22, 1999  Harold Feld wrote:
> > > > A number of people have raised this issue for "chartered" TLDs.
> > >
> > > Yes, since mid 1996.
> >
> > And therefore everything worth being said has been said?
> > And therefore there is no more reason for debate?
>
> ??Please simmer down, chill out, and reread.  Nothing I said merited
> your emotional tirade.

Not what you said ... the way you said it.

> Possibly, but not so far.  If the registry takes upon itself
> the task of
> deciding who gets a TLD, it also takes on the responsibility of being
> involved in all disputes over a TLD.  In current objective reality,
> registries and registrars are very anxious to avoid getting in the
> middle of disputes -- it's a risky, money losing proposition.  Putting
> those decisions off into some other authority allows the registry and
> registrars to sidestep most of the disputes.

We both are advocating "chartered TLDs" but I think that we mean something
entirely different by that term. Also by who has the authority to enforce
the charter. In my proposal, I maintain that the TLD registry defines and
enforces the charter with the root-registry providing over-sight. Part of
the TLD qualification process includes the presentation and review of a
charter enforcement plan along with the definition of the charter. Absence
of either one, or an inadequate enforcement plan, would invalidate the
registry application. Annual reviews are also specified that measure the
extent to which charter enforcement is effective and an AQL (Acceptable
Quality Level) rating is administered. The mechanism for enforcing the
charter could be an outside validating agency, such as in MUSEUM, but it
doesn't have to be.

The key difference between us is that the TLD registry self-defines the
charter. The root-registry only polices the TLDs enforcement mechanism on a
quality-level basis, with penalties for sub-minimal performance. In your
system, you want the root-registry to both define the charter and do the
actual policing. I find the former to restricting and the latter too
expensive [for the root-registry].