Re: Thread 5: Defining the namespace (was Re: Thread 1:

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 3:34 AM -0800 12/30/96, Kent Crispin wrote:

> Hank Nussbacher allegedly said:
>
> [...]
>
> > I would assume some sort of gTLD charter would have to be written so that
> > everyone knows what belongs in each gTLD.  But how do you enforce it?  What
> > is to stop a news agency from wanting to register a .net SLD?  Or should we
> > ignore that entirely and just hope that everyone opens a SLD in the proper
> > place?  By using very generic gTLDs like .inet and .iway we eliminate that
> > problem.  Which is better?  I'd like to hear opinions on this matter.
>
> If we back up a bit, then it isn't necessary to make a choice as to
> which is better, because both approaches can be accomodated.  To do
> that there are a few assumptions:
>
> 1) each TLD has a charter.
>

Yay!

> 2) the gTLDs as a group all share the same charter, the "gTLD
> charter".  This charter would specify that generic TLDs are, in your
> words, very generic, and no attempt is made to discriminate SLD
> applicants by any criteria.
>
> 3) there are other TLDs that have different charters from the gTLD
> charter.  In particular, the list derived from the Yahoo categories
> might be called the "classified TLDs".  There could be other kinds of
> TLDs as well, but I won't discuss them.
>

Er... say dude... isn't this creating the same classes of TLDs that
appeared in my draft? I thought you said they were not needed? ;-p

P.S. I'm curious to find out about these other mysterious classifications.

> 4) registrars are required by the MoU they sign to enforce the
> charters for all TLDs for which they accept registrations.
>

Uphold community standards.

> 5) all TLDs are shared, but a registrar may elect *not* to accept
> registrations for a particular TLD because the registrar didn't feel
> it could enforce the charter.  Furthermore, a registrar may be
> *denied* the right to register in a particular, if it is determined
> that they are not doing a "reasonable" job of enforcing the charter.
>

Wot? Like enforcing use of .NET properly instead of using that when
.COM was already taken?

> A poorly structured charter would be very difficult to enforce.
> Furthermore, some conditions are intrinsically difficult to enforce.
> Therefore, charters need to be carefully thought through, and are very
> carefully worded documents, especially when it comes to specifying
> enforcement.  So, for example, the charter for the .art TLD, a
> "classified TLD", might state something like:
>
> 	"The .art TLD is intended for organizations that are
> 	one way or another involved in the arts: [Long list of
> 	appropriate categories of organizations].  Registrars
> 	for this TLD are will attempt to verify that the organization
> 	exists and actually is involved in the arts.  Given the
> 	flexible nature of "art", enforcement of this charter is
> 	at the "reasonable effort on the part of the registry"
> 	level."
>
> For this TLD enforcement is not a major issue -- if Joe's car repair
> wants to get joescarrepair.art no harm is done.
>

Must be a body shop with a paint sprayer... ;-)

> On the other hand, the charter for .law might require that the registrar
> obtain documentation from applicants verifying the connection to the
> legal profession, and the registrar might be required to keep that
> documentation on file.  Many registrars might not care to go to that
> level of effort, and the registrars that did might charge more for
> the service.
>

This justifies the need for a single registry to enforce this type of
charter. If physical documentation is needed (like a copy of the Bar
certification) it really needs to reside in one place and not end up
being scattered amongst multiple registries.

> In general, I think most enforcement would be at the "reasonable
> effort" level.  If the names are well chosen (and the yahoo names do
> seem fairly reasonable), most users would see the advantage of being
> correctly categorized, and registrars web pages would contain helpful
> information for new customers helping them categorize themselves.
>

Maybe this is a task for a meta-registry directory?

Regards,

Simon

--
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.