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

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> 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.)

      I think the term "generic" with respect to tlds is quite
confusing.  What we have are the 2 digit country code TLDs, and
everything else.   


> 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.

        
     Of course I support the issuance of both restricted and
unrestricted TLDs, but I would not put it this way.  The "meaning" will
depend upon use, and use will depend upon a combination of customer and
the restrictions on registration. 


     In general, a differentiated TLD, like .software or .flowers, would
have some obvious meaning, because of the string, but need not be
restricted.    But a .union, .usbank, or .organic, would be examples of
TLDs that would be candidates for restrictions on registrations.  


> 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.

     I think it would be useful to discuss these issues.  However, the
issue of ICANN's role in enforcing early (version .1) management systems
isn't obvious.  What if groups have good reasons to change management
systems.  Do they have to get ICANN's permission each time?   Also,
"pre-registration screening" need not be referred to as exotic or
elaborate, particularly as we really expand the TLD space, and different
management models are explored.  
    
> 
> 4. These guidelines should not be read to impose overly bureaucratic
> procedures on registries.

         I don't think this should be a rule, for a variety of reasons. 
Who would decide what is "overly bureaucratic"?   I think more important
is who will decide how to manage the TLD.  If the US government manages
.mil or .gov, I think they can do what they want, without ICANN
oversight.  Same with a .union TLD managed by unions, or a .usbank TLD
if managed by US FDIC.   The most important decision will be, who will
become the registry.  Then, I think in most cases, you leave the
registry alone.  


> 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.


      I think a TLD that is differentiated presents fewer conflicts for
trademark owners.  Clearly .software is different than .company, .zone,
or .mall.   However, there is not reason why .com should not face
competition for the undifferentiated space.  Lots of names work better
with .zone, .web, company, etc, than with .com, so why accept NSI's
monopoly? 


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


     Huh?  How will this be interpreted?  If you want to avoid issuances
of TLDs that are so similiar they cannot be easily distinquished, or
that would be misleading if not restricted (.fdicinsured open to
everyone, for example), then just say so.  The statement above seems to
open ended.  

> 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.

    Good to recognize the anticompetive issues.  Even better to not be
anticompetitive.

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


      "foster" might be replaced with "enable". 

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



-- 
=======================================================
James Love, Director           | http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology | mailto:love@cptech.org 
P.O. Box 19367                 | voice: 1.202.387.8030
Washington, DC 20036           | fax:   1.202.234.5176
=======================================================