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

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 21-Mar-2000 James Love wrote:
>> And there is a lot of criticism of
>> the way .edu and .int are run, and there are a lot of people who do
>> not think .gov or .mil should exist.  I for one think that all new
>> domains under those TLDs should be instead registered under gov.us
>> and mil.us.
> 
>     I guess the US government thinks it should benefit from its early
> investments in the Internet.  But in any case, neither of us will change
> this.

I think even the US Government is realizing it needs to make a change. I am
hopeful that with their now using gov.us that they will begin a migration. 
Let's correct our prior mistakes not make more of them.
     
>> As for .edu, there is a lot of international criticism about how restrictive
>> it
>> is.   There are a ever growing number of k-12 schools who feel they are
>> being
>> unfairly treated under that policy, and being pushed instead to use a rather
>> lengthy fourth level domain.  To imply that .edu works and does so without
>> controversy is simply wrong.
> 
>     I don't suggest there aren't disputes or even controversey over who
> can get a particularl TLD, like .edu.  But the fact that it is
> restrictive is a good thing, IMO.  What if everyone could get .edu?
> What would it mean?  What would be the point?
> 
>     Rather than giving everyone the .edu, it would make more sense to
> create more TLDs.

So instead you have Network Solutions deciding what is or is not a valid
educational institution.    Great solution, and has been proven not to work
very well.  The number of bogus processed registrations under .edu have been up
considerly.  I see reports of new ones every month.
 
>> .INT has been wrought with problems.  I for one would love to see an
>> explanation of how TPC.INT qualifies under the .INT "charter" and
>> why many other more worthy projects have been denied.  I am not
>> alone in those concerns.
> 
>     I find the .int and .gov TLDs useful.  It is some assurance that a
> group has some official status.  I don't want everyone to get either
> TLD.       

Apparently you didn't understand.  That SOME "unofficial status" projects have
gotten .int domains, but other worthy projects didn't.  Who is making the
decisions of what is or is not qualified for a .int domain name, and what are
the standards they are enforcing?   They do not seem to be very clear, and
surely TPC.INT has no "official status."  If they get their domain, certainly
other projects of the same caliber should have every right to use that domain
was well.    The point is that if you are going to enforce it, ENFORCE IT.  If
you can't enforce it, then stop trying to pretend that you can. So far with the
exception of .mil, every other domain has had enforcement problems, including
.gov.  Their are numerous domains registered to non-US government agencies,
including one to the State of California, which doesn't qualify under the
rules.  Who decided what exceptions are made?  If a TLD is going to have a
charter, there should be NO Exceptions, and if you can't make it stick, then
why have a charter when it is only going to be selectively enforced?

Why not let the consumers decide for themselves what the meaning of those
strings of characters mean to them?
  
>> >      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.  
>> 
>> Fine with you, but surely you can see how .union can be used to mean many
>> different things.    Odd who those multiple meaning words do that, isn't it?
> 
>       I can see from your web page, you want to provide domain
> registration services.  So it is not surprising that you can see
> ourheavenly.union, Ihatethe.union, and lots of other .union domains
> that might sell in the market.

I am intending, as a part of my ISP business, to offer domain registration. 
Find me a web hosting company who doesn't.  This has absolutely no impact on my
position, and has been my position long before I decided to resell someone
else's registration services.
 
>     I could care less about that.  The fact that people might want to
> use .edu, .gov, .int, .union and other non commerical domains, for lots
> of interesting and cool domain names, isn't as important to me as the
> value of the TLD as a signal.  A TLD can't be all things to all people.
> If the TLD is a first come first serve thing, it will be different than
> if its use is restricted.  There is room for both models.  
> 
>     I support the creation of thousands of TLDs, and lots of different
> management models, including the kinds that you like, as well as
> these other kinds.  

Nice way to skirt the issues.  You think they are useful, so that makes it the
way things should be done.  Sorry, James, but I just don't agree with that
position.   So far no one has pointed out to me what problems there are with
letting these domains be open domains, and letting the organizations you are
trying to cater to coexist with other types of registrations under those TLDs. 
What harms do you envision, exactly?  When we make a restriction or pass a law
to limit commerce activities, we generally have to justify that there is a real
harm to not having this restriction.  Not that this restriction could be
"useful" but that there is a real problem that this rule addresses.  What
problems/harms do you see that need to be addressed and cannot be addressed
with less restrictive processes?
 
> 
>> >> 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.  
>> 
>> I don' t know what you are referring to here, but ICANN's sole
>> function is technical coordination. 
> 
>     Well, I don't see that what we are discussing here is strickly
> technical.  

But it should be.  ICANN's charter, is the Board continues to try and remind us
and the press, is TECHNICAL COORDINATION.  They cannot have it both ways. 
Either ICANN changes their charter and their contract with the USG to become a
global policy structure for Internet Governance, or they leave those issues
where they belong, OUTSIDE of the technical coordination of the Internet's
protocols, numbers, and names.
 
>> Unfortunately, it is the forces
>> of the Trademark/IP interests who have pushed ICANN into a policy
>> administration role in return for them not outright opposing ICANN
>> and it's perceived authority.  ICANN sold out on that point.  I
>> would not encourage it to continue exceeding it's function just
>> because it did it once.
> 
>      I don't think the future will be up to ICANN alone.  If ICANN has
> the power to place conditions on domains, as it is doing now with
> regard to anonymity and trademarks, it will be approached by governments
> to do more.

You think ICANN is eliminating anonymity?  I registered a domain just two weeks
ago under a pseudonym.  I did it for a real purpose.   ICANN has no process or
authority to change that, and nothing it has done up until now has prevented
that.  Nor should they.
 
>     The suggestion was made in Strasbough, last week, that ICANN be
> required to put provisions into its contracts that it would permit
> courts in any country to order a domain be removed.  Apparently NSI has
> been doing this for a while already, but the new competitive registry
> system makes this less of a "one stop shopping" issue for court orders.  

That suggestion can be made, but that suggestion is wrought with problems.  A
court in Germany has absolutely no authority over me, and if ICANN removes my
domain name on the order of a German court, ICANN is going to find it on the
wrong side of a lawsuit about my rights to due process.  They can make the
agreement say whatever they want, but when those provisions are ruled unlawful
in a court, they will provide no protection for ICANN or it's Board of Directors
when they are held responsible for their actions.


- --
William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
http://userfriendly.com/
Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/

iD8DBQE41vTe8zLmV94Pz+IRAjBrAKDQyaAmhyuV4ZWOjbV1s2jc6S5PaACg48+8
WphRpe6bPboScx/AKpmpcuI=
=mryL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----