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

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 6:31 PM -0800 12/30/96, Kent Crispin wrote:

> 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.
>

I don't think you've been paying attention. You need both to limit
unnecessary complexities from the charter, and to ensure that a
consistant set of guidelines are available for administration. See
below. ;)

> > 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".
>

It's administration (and the registrars) is/are defined by its charter
and it falls under the shared class for overall shared-admin guidance.
That's why you need to make the shared/non-shared distinction and then
use the charter for the fine print that distinguishes each TLD (such as
policy, terms, registrars, etc.).

> [...]
>
> > > 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.
>

.law would be like .int - controlled. .law.us would be under the shared
.US delegation (how's that for a can of worms?) :)

Regards,

Simon

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