RE: [wg-c] S/K principles

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

I do not like Principle #1 as Philip has drafted it.

It seems inconsistent with open TLDs. Why should there be a principle
designating that TLD strings have meaning? This seems superfluous on the one
hand, and on the other could be  used against the continued operation of a
registry that has no more precise meaning than *.com currently has. In other
words, we should be careful that our "principles" do not inadvertently
sustain the *.com TLD in its privileged position.

The other points seem fine.

Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
www.cyberspaces.org
rod@cyberspaces.org
>The
> point of the principles is that even a new open gTLD should, as some
> commented last week, have a defining characteristic. We tried to capture
> this in the original principles by
> "3. Differentiation – 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 is not, as some have suggested, a call for only charter gTLDs. It
> intentionally leaves it to a registry to be as chartered or as
> open as they
> please, so long as they are different to all that has gone before them.
> Given that the relevant  "gone before" is dot com, net and org defining a
> new open gTLD is pretty simple.
>
> So, let me offer this revision of the S/K principles based on the 6 April
> Weinberg iteration which usefully tightened the phrasing and reduced the
> number of principles by consolidating some of the original ideas. I have
> added two points regarding next steps (which are not really principles but
> seems to be what the WGC thinks is a good idea, as I do).
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> -
> Criteria for assessing a gTLD application from a registry
> operator, subject
> to
> current technical constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should
> be based on all the following principles :
>
> 1. Meaning: A 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.
>
> 2. Enforcement: An application for a TLD should explain the mechanism for
> charter enforcement where relevant.
>
> 3. Differentiation: 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.
>
> 4. Diversity: New TLDs are important to meet the needs of an expanding
> Internet
> community.  They should serve both commercial and non-commercial goals.
>
> 5. Honesty: A TLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for
> malicious or
> criminal elements who wish to defraud net users.
>
> 6. Competition: The authorization process for new TLDs should not
> be used as
> a means of protecting existing service providers from competition.
>
> Next steps
> In addition WG C recommends that the Names Council sets up a new working
> group to consider the application of these principles as practical
> guidelines. The WG C also recommends that the Names Council
> should charter a
> working group to develop policy regarding internationalized domain names
> using non-ASCII characters.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So, Jonathan et al, is this something upon which the majority of
> the WG can
> agree?
>
> Philip
>
>
>
>
>
>
>