[wg-c] Some reactions to the principles v5

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

A bit of Occam's razor, and a bit more sensitivity to competition policy, and I
think we'll be in good shape.

Philip Sheppard wrote:

> 1. Certainty: a gTLD should give the net user confidence that it stands for
> what it purports to stand for.
> 2. Honesty – a gTLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for
> malicious or criminal elements who wish to defraud net users.

Isn't principle 2 all we really need here? I.e., principle 1 is relevant only
insofar as it contributes to the goal of principle 2. But left in there it might
be interpreted to exclude TLDs that are simply brands or new ideas that don't
"stand for" anything -- YET -- to net users.

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

Here I am concerned with competition policy issues. I would not like to see P3
used to block new proposals on the grounds that they would compete with existing
TLDs. Nor would I want to see existing TLDs harden into permanent monopolies on
a specific category. E.g., to take a specific example, suppose ".enum" is
authorized for domain name to telephone number mapping. Another group proposes
".voip," which offers basically the same functionality, intentionally designed
to compete with .enum, but uses a clearly different name.  I do not want the
.enum people to be able to block the creation of .voip on the grounds that it is
not "differentiated" because it offers the same functionality. So let's reword
P3 and P4 as follows:

3. Differentiation -- the selection of a gTLD string should not confuse Internet
users. gTLDs should be clearly differentiated by the string and/or by the
marketing and functionality associated with the string.

> 4. Competition – new gTLDs should foster competition in the domain name
> space.

 4. Competition - new gTLDs should foster competition in the supply of domain
names and in the provision of Internet applications and services. The
authorization process for new gTLDs should not be used as a means of protecting
existing service providers from competition.

> 5. Diversity - new gTLDs should foster the expression of views, both
> commercial and non-commercial.

This is fine.

> 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.

I still find this redundant. I do not understand what organization is going to
propose, invest in and operate a gTLD that is not meaningful or of interest to a
significant number of net users. It seems to address a non-issue. Moreover, if I
were a Thai or a Korean or a resident of any other small country with its own
language, I might feel a bit excluded by such a principle. If you must keep this
principle, try this modification:

6. Semantics -- registry applications for gTLDs should explain what meaning will
be imputed to the proposed gTLD string.

> 7. Findability – a gTLD should assist a net user to find a particular domain
> name.

Can this not be incorporated into the differentiation principle? We have, I
think, pretty much demolished the idea that TLDs are used as a searching tool,
although everyone recognizes that in the current environment people try to guess
names in the ".com" space. All we really need to say, then, is that TLDs should
be differentiated and not confusing. That is the only way in which TLDs play a
role in "findability."

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

Yes.

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

Yes.

--MM