Re: [wg-c] Principles for domain names v7

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	As long as we're all chiming in . . .

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

	I understand this principle to mean that a gTLD registry must enforce the
conditions of its charter, if any, against SLD registrants, so that the
registry must refuse or delete the SLD registration of an entity that uses,
or would use, the registration in a way inconsistent with "what [the gTLD]
purports to stand for."  It also means, I assume, that ICANN should take
some sort of action against a gTLD that fails to engage in such
enforcement.  (If the principle doesn't mean those two things, I don't
think it means anything.)   This sort of monitoring is expensive.  In some
cases, it's relatively uncontroversial; as Philip has suggested, it's not
unreasonable to require a gTLD marketing itself as .kids to enforce a
policy that its registrants may not put up web sites under the TLD
marketing porn.  In other cases, OTOH, its costs may outweigh its benefits.
 If a registry sets up .automobiles for folks who are in some way
associated with the automobile world, I think think there's any need for
the registry to screen registrants -- who else would want to register in
that TLD?  If the answer is that the intended meaning of the principle
isn't to require the proprietor of .automobiles to screen registrants, but
only to impose some appropriate monitoring/screening requirement on .kids,
then I think it would be useful to find wording that more precisely
captures the class of cases to which the principle would apply.

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

	This principle has been tweaked quite a bit, to the point where it seems
to me somewhat unclear; I suspect that different people could read the
language and come away with different understandings of its meaning.  (That
may be a virtue.)

>6. Semantics – registry applications for a gTLD should explain what meaning
>will be imputed to the proposed gTLD string and how the new gTLD will be
>perceived by the broad population of net users.

	I think Kent's point here is unavoidable.  Applicants for a TLD
intelligible only in Chinese will not be proposing a TLD whose meaning is
perceptible by "the broad population of net users."  Indeed, we may soon
reach the point where, if applicants couch their explanation in terms of
the English-language significance of the string, then they still won't be
describing the perceptions of "the broad population of net users," b/c the
broad population of Net users won't speak English.  Perhaps "and how the
new gTLD will be perceived by the relevant population of net users"?

>7. Multiplicity - new gTLDs should become available as needed to meet the
>needs of an expanding Internet community.

	In the long run, it seems to me, ICANN should not seek to limit the total
number of gTLDs short of the bounds of the technically feasible and
operationally stable.  A substantial majority of the people who signed the
Interim Report's various position papers agreed.  But this principle, it
seems to me, implies the opposite:  It suggests that, looking to the long
term, the proponent of a new gTLD will always have the burden of showing
that "new gTLDs . . . [are] needed" before it can begin to make its case
that its proposed TLD should be added to the root.  When a proposal for a
new TLD is made, it would be appropriate under this principle for an
opponent to counter that the new TLD should not be added because it is not
sufficiently "needed."  This strikes me as pernicious.  Further, I can't
think of any reason why it would be desirable for ICANN to apply such a
"need" test.

Jon