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

["Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <rod@cyberspaces.org>]

I think these guidelines are reasonable. I support the WG-C's adoption of
them.

Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
www.cyberspaces.org
rod@cyberspaces.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Weinberg
> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2000 11:41 PM
> To: wg-c@dnso.org
> Cc: philip.sheppard@aim.be
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles [Was: Working Group C agenda]
>
>
> 	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.
>