Re: Initial gTLD creation

[davidk@ISI.EDU]

Kent,

> Kent Crispin writes :
> 
> The current IAHC draft specifies that 7 new gTLDs will be created
> instantly, with generic names, and all managed exactly the same way
> under a single MoU. I suggest the following alternative: that instead
> the IAHC put out a request for proposals for 7 *charters* for new
> individual shared gTLDs.  These charters would specify the TLD name, a
> rationale for its existence, special management characteristics to be
> specified in the specific MoU for the particular TLD, special
> requirements for registrars (if any), and so on.  Individual 
> registrars would be free to sign the MoU for a particular TLD or not, 
> at their option (I expect that most registrars would sign all MoU's, 
> but some may not).
> 
> This scheme has several highly practical advantages:
> 
> First, it frees the IAHC from the role of having to create names, and 
> instead puts them in the position of selecting among the creative 
> efforts of many.
> 
> Second, it gives stake-holders in particular TLD names a chance to be 
> involved in the process.
> 
> Third, it allows for flexibility in TLD administration -- for 
> example, it would allow chartering of a TLD with a fixed SLD structure.
> 
> Fourth, it allows for greater variety on TLDs, and hence greater 
> chance for registrars to differentiate themselves competitively.
> 
> Fifth, it sets in motion the TLD chartering process.

I cannot agree with you this time, although parts of the idea are good.

I agree that registrars should have no say in if and which new gTLD
domains should be created. As I explained before, this can easily have
the not so nice side-effect that the registars decide to create (or not
create) some extra gTLDs just for the sake of maximizing their income.

I don't have a problem if gTLDs have a clear charter before it is
accepted, but I do have a problem with registrars enforcing them. It's
just not needed and gives registars an impossible task (of course they
may give customers an advice). Stick to clear and descriptive gTLD names
as a requirement. I don't think that IBM will register under .SEX and if
they do, who cares? I don't think I will register under .africa but if I
would do, who cares? (side question: is there a good reason why gTLD
names should be limited to 5 characters?)

What is the problem if companies or persons register under the 'wrong'
domain ? What's wrong if the meaning of a certain gTLD changes due to
'another kind of people' registering under the name since they feel
affiliated with the name but for another reason then the initial charter?

David K.
---