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

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

The problem with this is that Kent has a point and it is correct. The word
"trust" has precise technical meaning and semantics, in the context of
security issues. This context is much too closely coupled with domain issues
for us to make fine distinction possible, without totally confusing the
meanings for either. We'd spend much too much time bickering over the
distinctions, and when they apply, as both contexts could be used in the
same sentence.

Besides, the word "trust" is being used here to connote consistency. This
may be a mis-application in any case.

> 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