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

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	I think we may be getting somewhere.  Most of the comments (aside from
Eric's) are focusing on two issues: [1] the idea that chartered TLDs are
only one part of the name space; and [2] the problems inherent in any rigid
rule requiring particular sorts of enforcement from TLD registries.  (The
first set of comments echos the results of our last straw poll, in which a
strong majority of respondents were of the view that there should be both
open and restricted TLDs).

	So I've taken a shot at a revised version of S/K, to eliminate those
problems.  The guidelines that follow reorganize Philip's principles;
reword them very slightly; and (most importantly) eliminate principle #1
("a gTLD should give the net user confidence that it stands for what it
purports to stand for") in favor of the new language in guidelines 1 and 3.
 We can't call the result "S/K" anymore, since I don't know whether either
Sheppard or Kleiman will support it, but it may be a document that most of
us can agree on.

	(I don't think we should address multilingualism in this document.  I
personally favor multilingualism, but it's a controversial issue currently
being addressed in the IETF and elsewhere, and deserves a WG of its own; we
shouldn't just throw in language about it at the last minute.)

	What do people think?

Jon


Guidelines for the initial rollout of new gTLDs

1. The initial rollout should include both open, unrestricted TLDs and
chartered TLDs with more limited scope.  (In these guidelines, the term
"gTLD" is used to refer to both.)

2. An application for a chartered TLD should explain what meaning will be
imputed to the proposed TLD string, and how the new TLD will be perceived
by the relevant population of net users.

3. An application for a chartered TLD should explain how the registry will
enforce the charter.  Possible enforcement mechanisms may be as simple as
registrant self-selection (relying on the principle that registrants will
typically not find it desirable to locate in incongruous TLDs) or as
elaborate as pre-registration screening by the registry.

4. These guidelines should not be read to impose overly bureaucratic
procedures on registries.

5. The selection of a gTLD string should not confuse net users, and so
gTLDs should be clearly differentiated by the string and/or by the
marketing and functionality associated with the string.

6. A gTLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for malicious or
criminal elements who wish to defraud net users.

7. New gTLDs should foster competition in the supply of domain names and in
the provision of Internet applications and services.  The authorization
process for new gTLDs should not be used as a means of protecting existing
service providers from competition.

8. New gTLDs should foster the expression of views, both commercial and
non-commercial.

9. New gTLDs should become available to meet the needs of an expanding
Internet community.