Re: [wg-c] nine principles for domain names

["Bret A. Fausett" <baf@fausett.com>]

>> Philip Sheppard wrote:
>>> 1. Trust – a gTLD should give the net user confidence that it stands for
>>> what it purports to stand for.

> Bret Fausett wrote:
>> As phrased, the statement assumes that TLDs stand for something, and some of
>> them may simply be memorable strings, standing for nothing.

Kent Crispin wrote:
> I think his point is that TLDs *should* stand for something, and that
> consumers should have some confidence in that.  The term "trust" is a
> bit strong, perhaps, especially given that it has, at least to some,
> technical implications.
> 
> Note that I don't necessarily agree that all TLDs should stand for
> something, but on the other hand, I take it quite seriously as a point
> of view.

I take it quite seriously too. We can see the problems that arise simply by
looking at .com, .org, and .net. Once upon a time, they stood for something.
But innumerable circumstances changed that and now any distinctions are, for
most purposes, meaningless. One unfortunate result is that corporate domain
name owners are registering across all TLDs and attempting to enforce their
trademarks across all TLDs. That expensive and annoying exercise may have
been prevented if .com, .org, and .net had retained some meaningful
distinctions.

I also like the idea of seeing if consensus can be built around first
principles, such as those that Philip and Kathy have floated. But that's
going to be difficult if the "Trust" plank is meant to exclude true generic
TLDs. I don't know that this was their intent, but we could clarify it by
making a change in the wording.

Something like:

Trust: a chartered or zoned gTLD should give the net user confidence that it
stands for what it purports to stand for.

   or 

Trust: a gTLD that purports to stand for something should give the net user
confidence that the intended distinction between it and other gTLDs is
meaningful.

         -- Bret