Re: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda]

["Mark C. Langston" <mark@bitshift.org>]

On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:17:09AM -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>
> 	Let's talk about this.  
>

 [snip]

> 2. The actual language in the S/K
> principles that goes to the question of enforcement is #1: "a gTLD
> should give the net user confidence that it stands for what it
> purports to stand for."  My understanding of that language, based on
> various folks' exchanges with Philip on this list, is that ICANN
> would expect a new TLD to have some mechanism (pre- or post-
> registration) to eliminate SLD registrations that are inconsistent
> with "what [the gTLD] purports to stand for."  Philip has indicated
> that the language is consistent with having a new TLD that is open,
> and therefore "stands for" unrestricted content, but presumably a
> TLD that indicates in its charter that it "stands for" something
> narrower would have to have some mechanism to enforce that by
> excluding SLD registrants.

This is a huge mistake, and one people are continually making.  The
existence of an SLD does not indicate the existance of a website, nor
does it mandate it.  Are we to assume that all SLD registrants in a
TLD will be required to run websites?  If not, how else will content
and adherence to charter be determined?  Will the registry require
that the website be run bound to port 80?  Will the proper use be
limited to, or a subset of, the use to which the owner puts the SLD?
Will compliance be determined by a context-free analysis of the
various potential meanings of the SLD string?

In short, how do they propose to do this?  It's a nice sentiment, but
I'm not about to endorse anything that vague and overarching before
these and similar issues are resolved.



>  There's been some debate on the list as to how costly this would
> be, but I think Kevin raises a more basic issue that I'd like to see
> discussed: Is this a good model for the name space, or a bad one?
> *Should* most new TLDs have such mechanisms?


I don't think chartered TLDs are a bad model.  I do, however, believe
that the sentiment expressed in #2 above is just silly.  When you have
a chartered TLD, tie the qualifications to something _tangible_, like
.edu does, or .gov, or .int.  If you want to start enforcing
restrictions based on the content of the entities you're restricting,
you're not an impartial arbiter, you're a censor (and a poor one, at
that).

What does this mean for individuals?  Not much, except that most
individuals will be locked out of participating in these chartered
TLDs.  While every entity is typically a superset of one or more
individuals, no individual can by hirself claim to be a seperate
entity.  In other words, corporations and other non-human entities
will always be able to participate in individual-oriented TLDs,
whereas individuals are always going to be locked out of participation
in chartered TLDs.

I'm not sure how I feel about this.  My whole basis for supporting
chartered TLDs was that it'd give business safe spaces in which they
wouldn't have to worry so much about infringement.  But it would seem
that they'd rather have strict control over all of namespace than
their own sandlot in which to play.



> There are some who argue that the best, bottom-up, user-driven
> structure for the name space will be created by allowing users to
> register where they want, and thus to define the name space in the
> ways most meaningful to them.  There are others who argue that that
> such an approach would interfere with attempts to add value through
> the structure of the name space, and would allow some registrants to
> destroy the utility of the name space for others.  Using Kevin's
> example, they urge that .FIRM can add value only if a user can
> deduce from a registrant's presence in that portion of the name
> space that it is in fact a limited-liability corporation (say), and
> not an unincorporated pornographer.  I suspect that this is one of
> the most important issues underlying the S/K principles.  What do
> people think?

If the charter is enforced and enforceable (see my concerns about #2
above), the end-user perception of the TLD will emerge naturally from
its constituent members.  Cf. .INT, .GOV, and .EDU.  If the charters
are enacted as per the S/K proposal, the end-user will be confused,
the group responsible for policing the space will go bankrupt, and the
TLD will revert to generic status, at which point we'll have IP
interests clamoring for tighter controls on it before they have to
spend money to police their own marks again.


-- 
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org
Systems & Network Admin
San Jose, CA