Re: [wg-c] Proposed gTLDs: The IAHC Seven

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.net>]

At 09:28 AM 4/10/00 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 12:41 AM 4/7/00 -0400, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>>The so called IAHC 7 was reviewed by those who were active at that time in
>>the process. Many of today's participants will not recognize IAHC because it
>In any event, Kent made a factual observation that that list is the only 
>one to have received wide-spread review.  As a statement of fact, the 
>statement is correct.

The result of the "wide-spread review" was a number of lawsuits (IOD, PGP 
Media, etc.), and the intervention of the USG. Lawsuits have this annoying 
habit of red flagging those situations without community consensus, and was 
one of the reasons the USG/DoC intervened. The USG declared the 
IAHC/gTLD-MoU proposal as invalid and ICANN was created to continue the 
work of IANA (let's not forget the facts, eh?).

>Or do you know of another list that has received anything close to an 
>equivalent review?  While the current community involvement is larger than 
>a couple of years ago, the review the name list received, back then, was 
>nonetheless quite extensive and did result in change.

Yes. Jon Postel's original IANA application list has never been challenged 
after 4 years of peer review. Just ignored. It is the only list that meets 
the NSF submission requirements (see below).

http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/00990.html

>Rather than observing the tautology that this community is constantly 
>changing, do you know of specific problems with that list of seven 
>names?  (Other than the frequently cited claim(s) about .web.)

Absolutely. The 7 IAHC TLDs were never been submitted to IANA via RFC1591 
process. Jon Postel confirmed this in person just before he died. How 
important is this? Read the following letter from NSF:

http://name.space.xs2.net/law/answers/letters/NSF-NSI08111997.jpg
"The Foundation [NSF] and NSI agreed that new TLDs would be added only in 
accordance with Request For Comments 1591."

>Perhaps I have misunderstood your note, and you merely were concerned that 
>the current community needs to be familiar with the list.  In that case it 
>would have helped to include a URL to it.  Let's remedy that failing now:
>
>The original list is cited in the Excecutive Summary of :
>
>         <http://www.iahc.org/draft-iahc-recommend-00.html>

Don't forget the USG officially invalidated this "recommendation".

>After extensive public review, there was clear consensus to change .store 
>to .shop.  Interestingly, the latter was deemed to have a more 
>"international" flavor, since the word is used in more than one language.
>
>Hence, the resulting list of gTLDs is:
>
>         .firm   for businesses, or firms
>         .shop   for businesses offering goods to purchase
>         .web    for entities emphasizing activities related
>                  to the WWW

In dispute (see IANA list).

>         .arts   for entities emphasizing cultural and
>                 entertainment activities

In dispute (Skyscape? - anyone have the reference?).

>         .rec    for entities emphasizing
>                 recreation/entertainment activities
>         .info   for entities providing information services
>         .nom    for those wishing individual or personal
>                 nomenclature

The remainder TLDs are carried in several of the alternative root server 
systems, and you can probably garner consensus for those 5 out of the 7 
TLDs if you decide to play nice with the other children.

But I'd be very concerned about the liability of the pre-sales by the CORE 
registrars. Does ICANN have the liability coverage for this?

The bottom line is that the IAHC proposal was reviewed and rejected by arms 
longer than both Kent and Dave.


Best Regards,

Simon

--
I hope you're taking good notes. 'Coz history will be reported differently.