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

["Bret A. Fausett" <baf@fausett.com>]

I had understood the S/K principles as having a different purpose, namely,
as a guide toward the selection of the new gTLDs, not as a charter for their
operation. 

For example, the principles would suggest that you don't add a ".biz" as an
open gTLD when you have a ".com." They would, however, allow the selection
of a ".biz" as a chartered gTLD in which only, say, publicly traded
companies could register.

Once the selection of a new gTLD is made, generic or chartered, I had
assumed that the S/K principles fade away -- except perhaps to operate as a
check against a chartered TLD becoming a generic one or otherwise failing to
abide by the representations made during the TLD selection process (though
I'm not sure how you prevent that).

That was how I had read S/K anyway.

          -- Bret


>> I suspect that the objections that have been raised by Kevin, Rod, Mark, Dave
>> and Eric can't be addressed by redrafting.  As far as the
>> Connolly/Dixon/Langston objection is concerned, I'd expect Philip Sheppard to
>> view the requirement that registries enforce their charters as a fundamental
>> one, not something he could give up while maintaining the principles'
>> utility.  (Phil — am I right about this?)  And I think that the set of
>> principles that would satisfy Dave Crocker and Eric Brunner is so different
>> from this one that one couldn't get there using this set as a starting point.
>> (Dave, Eric — am I right about this?)

> I'm not entirely sure I entirely understand the query, but here's an effort
> to respond, for myself only:
> 
> Registration restricted to conformance to a charter is a 'chartered'
> TLD.  com/net/org represent a category that is not enforced and it is THIS
> category that is in need of competition.  I think chartered TLDs are fine,
> but they are an entirely separate market from 'generic' TLDs.  (Think hard
> about the term 'generic'.  If there is a charter and it is enforced, just
> how 'generic' is the TLD.)  com/net/org have descriptions of the intended
> meaning of their terms, but carry no enforcement.
> 
> So, I think that requiring -- or even pursuing -- enforcement at this stage
> is entirely misguided and serves only to keep us from pursuing our primary
> task, namely to create competition for com/net/org..