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

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

	There weren't too many comments over the weekend on the principles.  In
response to Jean-Michel, I'm reluctant to fiddle with the language of
what's now number 4 because the language seemed to satisfy a broad range of
people when it was first proposed, and I don't want to reopen old
controversies.  Are other people dissatisfied with this language?

	I've been talking offline with Tan Tin Wee and James Seng (who's co-chair
of the IETF internationalized domain name wg).  I gather that the IETF WG
is on track to issue its own informational RFC by July; that WG will not be
addressing governance issues.   I've had the thought that we might add a
sixth principle that reads something like this:

	6. As a general matter, new TLDs should be designed to serve
non-English-speaking as well as English-speaking communities.  As
application for a new TLD, thus, may contemplate that the proposed TLD
string will have its primary semantic meaning in a language other than
English.  The DNSO should promptly charter a working group to develop
policy regarding internationalized domain names using non-ASCII characters.

Is this agreeable to the working group?

	If we're to have a week for a formal consensus call, and still get the
result to the Names Council before the NC's own vote, then I need to issue
the consensus call *tomorrow*.  Do folks want any further changes before
then?  Speak now . . . 

Jon

-------------------


	1. The initial rollout of six to ten new gTLDs, followed by an evaluation
period, should include both open, unrestricted TLDs and chartered TLDs with
more limited scope.

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

	3. An application for a chartered TLD should explain the mechanism(s) for
charter enforcement.  The simplest possible enforcement mechanisms is
registrant self-selection: that is, if .AUTOMOBILES is set up for entities
in some way associated with the automobile world, the applicant might
simply rely on its understanding that other entities will have no interest
in registering in that TLD.  Alternatively, an applicant might choose a
more elaborate, registry-driven enforcement mechanism.

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

	5. New TLDs are important to meet the needs of an expanding Internet
community.  They should serve both commercial and noncommercial goals.  The
authorization process for new TLDs should not be used as a means of
protecting existing service providers from competition.

	6. As a general matter, new TLDs should be designed to serve
non-English-speaking as well as English-speaking communities.  As
application for a new TLD, thus, may contemplate that the proposed TLD
string will have its primary semantic meaning in a language other than
English.  The DNSO should promptly charter a working group to develop
policy regarding internationalized domain names using non-ASCII characters.