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

[Andrew Dalgleish <andrewd@axonet.com.au>]

> 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.
[Andrew Dalgleish]  

Re points 7 & 9
These are a "given" - that is why we are here. :-)



Re points 1,2,3,8
"open" TLDs are simply a special case of "chartered" TLDs, with a
charter that is less selective than other charters.

I believe that all applications for a TLD should include a charter,
proposed enforcement mechanism, etc, even if the charter is "we have no
charter".

This allows for open/closed, commercial/noncommercial TLDs.
All such TLDs have a place in the community.



Re points 5 & 6:
How do you propose to avoid confusing users?
(And confusion is almost a required step to commit fraud.)

I doubt there is a suitable legal definition (which applies globally)
which would say "No, that TLD string is confusing".

From the casual internet user's point of view, the difficult part is
identifying any meaning from the TLD string.

At present some TLDs have meaning (.edu), some do not (.com).
The meaning of these TLDs is available to the casual user, but I doubt
many casual users could tell you where.

With a proliferation of TLDs, identifying a TLDs charter (or lack of)
will only become more difficult.
A TLD string is probably too short to convey any real meaning,
particularly in multiple languages.

For example, I'm sure "gov" does not mean government in all languages,
yet the implication of the current ".gov" is that ".gov.xx" will be the
relevent government for the country code xx.
(What happens if a country has a coup?)

I think we need to provide a mechanism for the casual user to access a
TLDs charter, perhaps via a link like "TLD.charter.icann", where the
suffix is (or becomes) a "widely known" authority.

If a TLD has no charter, the casual user should be able to identify that
(to protect them from TLDs which sound secure, but are not).
If a TLD is for banks insured by the government of the day, the casual
user should be able to identify that (to boost consumer confidence).
Is this two-character TLD really the "official" cc? Have I even got the
right country? "xx.charter.icann" will tell you.

Of course, this does not address the problems where the charter is not
in the user's native language, or worse, "legalese".
(Can you write "legalese" in Esperanto? :-)

Regards,
Andrew Dalgleish