Re: [wg-c] new TLDs

["Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>]

----- Original Message -----

> RFC 1591 actually contains a 'charter' for *every* generic TLD, with
> restricitons on .com (for commercial entities), .net (only computers of
> network providers) and .org (NGOs and others). NSI just chose to ignore
the
> restrictions and no one enforced them:

Which means, of course, that there was no "charter." This is precisely the
point I have been trying to make.
"Chartering" a TLD means licensing a particular registry to become, in
effect, a proprietor of a zone file. If the proprietor has no internal
incentive to enforce a charter, and the licensor doesn't want to enforce the
charter, then there is no charter.

We seem to have strayed from the only reason this issue is worth discussing.
The issue was: do we want ICANN to beear ultimate responsibility for who
gets to register in the .bank TLD, the .museum TLD, the .cpa TLD, etc? If
your answer is "yes," two follow-on questions are worth considering:

1. is this within ICANN's administrative capacity, assuming it stays
somewhere near its current size?
2. mightn't ICANN's performance of such a function lead to an illegitimate
and troublesome transfer to it of regulatory authority over a wide variety
of social and economic activities?


--MM