Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, William X. Walsh wrote:
> I see this as wrought with problems.  A domain registry should not
> be a content police force.  It is a registration service, and that
> alone.

    That is one view of what a TLD should be, but it is not a view that
reflects current practice, and it is not our view.


> I would want to see any strict charters to have a lot of public
> input, because I see the rights of domain holders to use their
> domains as being in jeopardy by these attempts to turn registries
> into content police.

    The system would depend upon the TLD and its charter.  We have .gov,
.edu, .mil and .int.   Each has its own system, and each seems to work
ok.  

     Labor unions are meeting soon to discuss the .union TLD, including
issues of how such a TLD might be managed.  I don't know what they will
come up with, but if they choose to vest the management of the TLD in a
big international labor union federation of some type, it would be fine
with me.  

> 
> I know the MPAA and RIAA want domain names to be revoked when there are
> complaints about content, but surely we all see that as being extreme.

    There are lots of groups that will be seeking to use ICANN to
enforce a variety of policies.  This was raised in Strasbough last
thursday in a meeting of the European Parliament.  I was there.  This
has nothing to do with TLDs.  It has to do with ICANN's power and
control over domain registrations.  The US government has already asked
ICANN to eliminate the "mickey mouse" type registrations and to find the
true name of the domain owners, and also to address trademark issues. I
think this is only the beginning of ICANN as an enforcement tool for
governments.  This is an observation, not an endorsement.  

  Jamie

------------------
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology    
P.O. Box 19367        | http://www.cptech.org 
Washington, DC 20036  | love@cptech.org       
Voice 202/387-8030    | Fax 202/234-5176