[wg-c] Sheppard/Kleiman in WG-B

[Eric Brunner <brunner@world.std.com>]

I'm glad that the proposal is over in WG-B, and not here in WG-C, as it is
an awful mix of policies concerning ASCII labels in the root, ASCII labels
in the namespace subordinate to the root, registry policy models, inter-
registry policy models, and wishful thinking.

I'd like to be more charitable, but quit simply issues like the model for
the registry-registrant relationship ("trust" in Sheppard/Kleiman), the
model for the inter-registry relationship ("differentiation", "competition"
and "diversity" in Sheppard/Kleiman), the model for query resolution and
character encodings ("findability" and "semantics" in Sheppard/Kleiman)
and the model for the inter-registry registrant relationships ("honesty" in
Sheppard/Kleiman) is at least four distinct types of bruised fruit stuffed
into one torn and scuffled sack.

I left out "multiplicity" as the number of persons in the marks areas of
interest who've suggesting, even in private, that the "as needed" test can
be met is exactly one -- and in the spirit of compromise I've compromised
my sense of irony and humor.

The "semantic" claim should only be advanced by those who knew what ".com"
ment before picking up a browser in anger, and who understand that for the
present, DNS labels are encoded in ASCII.

The "findability" wishful thinking should take note of the work that is
now in the Common Names Resolution Protocol WG of the IETF (this must be
the Nth time I've mention this, but who in WG-B reads WG-C for technology?)

The "trust" and "honesty" claims would carry more weight if they had to do
with something the end-users actually care about -- public key infrastructure.
"fraud" at the level of names is quasi-comic, compromise of the CA and all
that can be strongly authenticated by derivation from the CA, now that is
real money. Unfortunately, for marks people, the mark is the value to be
transacted for, so credit card fraud in the attempted acquisition of marked
goods is no crime -- people should be satisfied with marks -- those are the
real goods.

I suppose that the "simplicity" point is to be understood as a gTLD (registry
operator) should not impose an overly bureaucratic procedure on a registr(ar,
or registrant).

Cheers,
Eric