RE: [wg-c] S/K principles

["Winer, Jonathan" <JWiner@alston.com>]

I believe one purpose of suggesting a meaning, even for an open TLD, is to
create a context for the term, which may be useful for many (not needfully
or necessarily all) users. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [mailto:rod@cyberspaces.org]
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 3:31 PM
To: Philip Sheppard; wg-c@dnso.org; Jonathan Weinberg
Subject: RE: [wg-c] S/K principles


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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


NOTICE:  This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone (404-881-7000) or by electronic mail (postmaster@alston.com), and delete this message and all copies and backups thereof.  Thank you.
=======================================================