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

["Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>]

Thank you for a host of comments on the principles and in particular on the
certainty and semantics principles:
"1. Certainty: a gTLD should give the net user confidence that it stands for
what it purports to stand for."

"6. Semantics – a gTLD should be meaningful in a language with a significant
number of net users."

I still stand by the certainty principle and it was in this context I argued
for meaning.  Dot zzz or .xs4l could pass this principle so long as the
registry applicant communicated the meaning he was seeking. "zzz just stands
for a very memorable domain name" would be fine. The principle is primarily
intended to reduce opportunities for fraud.

Dot zzz would not pass the semantics principle as worded and I hear the
arguments on this point. Dot zzz is potentially desirably because it is
memorable. I propose a re-phrasing:
6. Semantics – a gTLD should be meaningful in a language with a significant
number of net users or have an imputed meaning connected with such a
language."

On this test .zzz and .xs4l would pass. One has meaning as the last letter
of a significant alphabet, the other based on a pun in a significant
language. This test would exclude .f6tk (intended to be a random name) and I
believe that is right.
The intent behind the principle is not founded on scarcity but on a belief
that gTLDs are seen as having a global character. So there is a
responsibility for each gTLD to not view itself as an island, but as a part
of a greater whole.

For clarity I will re-post the principles without the above narrative.

Philip