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

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> Karl, you comment on two of the principles:
> 2. Semantics – a gTLD should be meaningful in a language with a significant
> number of net users.
> Read this one again - we say nothing about English or a European language.

By selecting *any* language in which a TLD has meaning, one necessarily
excludes several billions of people who do not use that language.

I suggest that the opposite to what you suggest would be preferable, i.e.
that TLDs be composed of character/digit sequences that are gibberish in
all languages - such as .x9z or .q3q.

 
> 1. Trust – a gTLD should give the net user confidence that it stands for
> what it purports to stand for.
> You say why trust? Are you happy then to say to net users "I know it says X
> but it means Y. Didn't you know that dear? We all did."

You are, of course, free to register a second level domain in some TLD -
say "PhilipSheppardsTrustedNames.com" and impose your own notions of
quality assurance on names you register in your SLD.

And, I don't see why any TLD operator could not decide to take it upon
itself, as its own business decision and at its own expense, to try to
monitor its registrants against some criterial of its own making.

But I fail to see why the DNS system should be mandated as a consumer
protection mechanism.

I might add that if the DNSO, as part of ICANN, adopts charters, it is not
unforeeable that ICANN could be found liable should it fail to be forever
vigilant over those charters or less than objective and even handed.  That
would be a substantial burden and cost.

		--karl--