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

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

Simon Higgs allegedly said:
> 
> At 3:34 AM -0800 12/30/96, Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
[...]

> > 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

You are referring, I think to the "Shared TLD Class", the 
"Specialized TLD Class", and the "Private TLDs" that you mention in 
your draft, I presume.

They clearly aren't needed.  Charters are a more general and flexible
mechanism than classifications.

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

How about:

	A registry shared between a fixed permanent set of 
	registrars, or a restricted class of registrars.  This
	is a shared registry, but not an openly shared one.  Does it
	fit in the "shared TLD class" or the "private TLD class".

[...]

> > 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.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that.  There might indeed be some 
charters that would essentially require a single registrar, but that 
single registrar is going to find it hard to have a meaningful 
international presence that can compete with shared registries.  I 
don't see a .law registry quite fitting into that mold.  A .law.us 
might, though.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E  87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F