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

[Javier SOLA <javier@aui.es>]

Jon,

I see in these principles a mix of different ideas with different goals. I 
believe that this could be structured in separate questions or documents:

1.- A question with guideline 1: ¿ Should some of the new gTLDs mandatorily 
be chartered and some not?

2.- A question: ¿should control of chartered gTLDs be done by the registry 
or should there be a UDRP that solves infractions.

3.- A document with requirements for chartered gTLD proposals.

4.- A document with requirements that the set of chosen initial gTLDs must 
meet.

Plese see more specific comments below.

Javier


>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.)

This has very strong implications. It mandates that both types of gTLDs be 
created within the original set. I don't know if this is good or bad, but 
it is important enough not to be bundled with other principles and treated 
independently.


>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.

This implies that the registry is in charge of "enforcement". All legal 
procedures for "ilegal" use would go against the registry, instead of 
against an ilegal registrat. The registry could go broke very quickly just 
with legal expenses just participating in all these cases.


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

Any control by the registrant in a multi-national environment would be 
extremelly heavy in procedure. The success of .com resides in the easiness 
of registration.


>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.

This makes sense.


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

Oportunities for malicious registrants are controled by UDRP


>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.

The term "competition in the supply of domain names" implies a for-profit 
registry mode. I would have a problem with that.

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

I cannot find the sense of this, it is far to vague.


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

We have aready done this by deciding on the creation of new gTLDs.