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

[Mark Measday <measday@josmarian.ch>]

Philip,

Yes, they are tired.

But
(i) some wouldn't pass your tests
(ii) some have prior legal claim
(iii) your principles should provide testable hypotheses as to utility and
social value above pure ROI to the registrar or registrant to demonstrate any
point in having principles
(iii) very few people wanted many of them,

implying that despite, the graceless presentation, there may be something said
for mere demand-based grant à la Mueller, whilst retaining Dave Crocker's valid
and systematic points.

On the other hand that will conceivably give us lots of tlds like a teen
magazine's putative oyr dot.u14 or M. Buisson's dot.iq4bush, which really don't
make life better, clearer. or more interesting.  Even dot.yit for motivational
golf speakers. Unless the principles can determine something, paradise lost.

MM

Philip Sheppard wrote:

> The tired set of domain names .firm   .shop   .web   .arts   .rec   .info
> .nom might indeed make an interesting test-bed for the principles. However,
> we envisage a system whereby the applicant registry proposes a gTLD and
> explains what they envisage for that gTLD. The registry describes the market
> they seek to attract. They describe the value added they are proposing for
> the DNS. Such description should be concise and unburdensome for the
> registry.
>
> It would also be practical for the applicant registry to demonstrate how its
> putative gTLD complies with the principles. The principles are not designed
> to test a name per se.
>
> Philip