RE: [wg-c] S/K principles

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

Jon,

 I think the revision works well.

Rod

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Weinberg
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 10:30 PM
> To: wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: [wg-c] S/K principles
>
>
> 	Today's comments on the principles raise two issues.
>
> 	1. Rod notes his concern that the requirement that each TLD
> string have
> "meaning" could be understood to preclude open TLDs.  We all, I think,
> agree that the principles *shouldn't* be read to preclude open TLDs.
> Philip explained back on Feb. 16 that he didn't see the principles as
> precluding "a ‘true generic' [that] purports to stand for that and only
> that."  He noted on Feb. 22 that in his mind .zzz would be an acceptable
> TLD; the corresponding meaning might be "‘.zzz just stands for a very
> memorable domain name.'"
>
> 	It seems to me that Rod has a point, though: a naive
> reader, unfamiliar
> with the full history of our discussions, might not read the word
> "meaning"
> so broadly — most of us would say that "zzz" is meaningless at the outset,
> although it might acquire meaning through branding.  Perhaps it would be
> more clear to reword the first principle to read:
>
> 	"1. Meaning: An application for a TLD should explain the
> significance of
> the proposed TLD string, and how the applicant contemplates that the new
> TLD will be perceived by the relevant population of net users.  The
> application may contemplate that the proposed TLD string will have its
> primary semantic meaning in a language other than English."
>
> 	2. Patrick raises the question whether differentiation, in
> the sense that
> each TLD operates in a different market segment, is an effective means of
> providing competition at all.  This is a basic issue, but I think the
> principles may side-step it.  The principles' language re: differentiation
> requires that "TLDs should be clearly differentiated by the
> string . . . ."
>  I've never considered this a model of unambiguous phrasing, but my guess
> is that differentiation "by the string" is not necessarily the same thing
> as differentiation by market segment in any event.
>
> 	I've been saying that we needed to get the text of the
> principles final by
> tonight, so that we could have one week for a formal consensus call, but I
> really want to have the chance for some further feedback before setting
> these in stone.  So, please -- get me any further comments by mid-morning
> EST tomorrow (Tues).  (This gives people in Europe nearly all day tomorrow
> to respond.  It gives people on the US West Coast essentially no time
> tomorrow, but hey — it's only suppertime on the West Coast now, so you
> folks have all evening.)  That knocks the consensus call down to six days,
> which I hate, but we'll have to make the best of it.
>
> Jon
>