Re: [wg-c] non-consensus call

["Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>]

First, I believe it is a mistake to assume that every chartered TLD 
immediately implies restrictions on who may register SLDs in that 
TLD.  The concept of prior restrictions does several things to the 
business model of the registry and or registrars (and none of them 
are good).

There is a different paradigm for "chartered" TLDs, one which 
carries strong implications about the content of the domains 
delegated under them without imposing prior restraints.  
Under this paradigm, anyone can register anything under a 
chartered TLD, but abusive registrations are subject to cancellation 
at the behest of any interested party.

To return to my tired and tiring example (but I have yet to find one 
which makes the distinction as clear) assume that .family is created 
as a chartered TLD for information about families.  The charter does 
not require production of a birth certificate or other proof of identity 
as a condition precedent to registration; but if mcdonalds.family were 
used to disparage the famous brand of hamburgers, the registration 
would not have a scintilla of protection.  By the same token, the 
registration by a member of that ilk of Scotsmen, and its use as a 
cybergathering place for that family, would not be subject to cancellation.

It would be up to the proposer/registry of .family whether several 
thousands of  SLDs registered by Name.Profit.Com (and offered 
at exorbitant pricing to family members) would be cancellable or safe.

Second, and most importantly, now that Kathy has made clear that 
the eight principles are entirely optional, and are intended for adoption 
or rejection by registries as they see fit, I believe that further discussion 
of or based upon the Eight Principles should come to a screeching halt 
in this WG.  Since the election to use the principles or not is reserved to 
each registry, I believe it is beyond our bailiwick.

Kevin J. Connolly


>>> Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com> 03/05/00 06:29PM >>>
	In my message last Tuesday, I also stated that I would issue a consensus
call on the issue of open vs. restricted TLDs.  There was a strong majority
in the straw poll in favor of the proposition that the process should have
room for *both* limited-purpose TLDs (which have a charter that
meaningfully limits who can register there) and general-purpose TLDs (which
have an "open" charter that does not significantly restrict registration in
that TLD, or, perhaps, have no charter at all).

	On second thought, though, it seems to me that this issue is intimately
connected with our ongoing discussions about the 8 principles that Philip
has proposed and redrafted.  I suspect that it would make sense to hold
back a consensus call on this issue until we're closer to closure, on way
or another, on those discussions.  So my inclination is to wait a bit on
this consensus call; if anybody thinks that's mistaken, please let me know.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, WG-C
weinberg@msen.com

**********************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
**********************************************************************