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

[Eric Brunner <brunner@world.std.com>]

My point-by-point on the latest draft of Sheppear/Kleiman follows, I don't
have a sintella of further interest in Sheppear/Kleiman.

> Criteria for assessing a gTLD registry operator application, subject to
> current technical constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should
> be based on all the following principles :
>
> Principles affecting the relationship between a gTLD Registry operator and
> those who may register

No reference is made to intermediaries (registrars). As a three-party model
is the prevailing case, this is a defect. 

> 1. Certainty: a gTLD should give the net user confidence that it stands for
> what it purports to stand for.

Contrary to the sense of the White and subsequent US DoC papers as it has
the consequence of preventing direct competition with NSI's business model
of policy-free gTLD branding. Rejected as failing to address the problem
posed by the existing gTLD registry operator.

> 2. Honesty \226 a gTLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for
> malicious or criminal elements who wish to defraud net users.

Contrary to the sense of the White and subsequent US DoC papers that law 
defined external to ICANN (a body capable of creating private law) is 
territorially scoped, and that gTLDs are not, of necessity, territorially
scoped. Rejected but see the side-bar.

[side-bar:
 Sorry Phil, but see "Use of Trademarks on the Internet: Issues Paper", and
 do the substitution of "marks" for whatever lack of honesty strikes your  
 fancy. Now if you'd made explicit reference to an ICANN statute on the
 subject of net-crime, it would be different. Yes. It needs to be writ.
 see: http://www.wipo.int/eng/document/sct/index_3.htm
] 

> Principles effecting the relationship between Registries

No reference is made to operational practices between registry operators.
As the stability of the DNS system requires, or at least favors, some form
of cooperation between registrars, this is a defect.

> 3. Differentiation \226 a gTLD should differentiate from all other gTLDs so as
> not to confuse net users.

Contrary to the sense of the White and subsequent US DoC papers as it has
the consequence of preventing direct competition with NSI's business model
of policy-free gTLDs . Rejected as preventing a .COM2 gTLD, created for the
purpose of direct undifferentiated competition with the existing gTLD
registry operator.
 
> 4. Competition \226 new gTLDs should foster competition in the domain name
> space.
 
Rejected as offering no clarification upon prior statements contained in
the White and subsequent US DoC papers.

[side-bar:
 Sorry Phil, principles have to mean something, not just steal lines in
 isolation from old policy papers everyone has. If you must plagerize,
 do it with style.
]

> 5. Diversity - new gTLDs should foster the expression of views, both
> commercial and non-commercial.
 
Rejected as offering no clarification upon prior statements contained in
the White and subsequent US DoC papers.

[side-bar:
 Sorry Phil, principles have to mean something, not just steal lines in
 isolation from old policy papers everyone has. If you must plagerize,
 do it with style.
]

> Principles with query resolution and character encoding implications

No reference is made to the technical constraint on labels (ASCII), this
is a defect.

> 6. Semantics \226 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.

Contrary to the sense of the White and subsequent US DoC papers that the
DNS root be managed by ICANN and its constituency process model, not by
a subset of its constituencies favoring commercial English, or favoring a
preferred "semantics".

Rejected as culturally specific, technically unnecessary, and frivolous.

> 7. Findability \226 a gTLD should assist a net user to find a particular
> domain name.
 
Rejected as culturally specific, technically unnecessary, and frivolous.

> Other principles
> 8. Multiplicity - new gTLDs should become available as needed to meet the
> needs of an expanding Internet community.

Contrary to the sense of the White and subsequent US DoC papers that new
gTLDs are presently needed. Rejected as moot.

[side-bar: 
 Sorry Phil, no test for necessity is specified.
]

> 9. Simplicity - adherence of the above principles should not impose an 
> overly bureaucratic procedure on a registry.

Contrary to the sense of the White and subsequent US DoC papers that the
root cause for contractor abuse of the gTLD registries was, and remains,
insufficient bureaucratic procedure (to use your choice of terminology).  

Rejected as contrary to the delegation of management oversight to ICANN,
as an unnecessary, even criminal constraint upon ICANN's ability to police
its delegatees and their adequate performance of their delegation.

Postscript:

Two charter applications actually exist, the first is Position Paper E,
the second is the European Union's. Each involves a distinct process in
the ICANN system, with no precedent but merit and necessity to offer.
Shepperd/Kleiman haven't applied their criteria to concrete test charters
and they've declined to apply their criteria to these charters.

The Cairo meeting will conclude in just under three weeks from today 
(Tue Feb 22 2000), without the benefit of WG-C having completed its
charter task, and in all likelyhood without a resolution authorizing
the delegation of a gTLD. The Yokohama meeting will conclude in 5 months,
also in all likelyhood without the benefit of WG-C having completed its 
charter task, and in all likelyhood also without a resolution authorizing 
the delegation of a gTLD.

A good delaying tactic will appear inviting upon casual inspection, it
wouldn't work and cause the desired delay if it were clearly labled a bad
idea. The Shepperd/Kleiman mail is a bad idea. I wrote as much to WG-C on
the 14th, today is the 23rd, that's 9 days wasted on lip gloss flavors and
colors that passes in WG-B as something other than "a bad idea".

Cheers,
Eric