> The gTLD-MoU Policy Oversight Committee would like to provide these
> further background clarifications and dimensions to the issues of
> expansion of the Internet generic Top Level Domain name space.
Several of these background clarifications are stated as
foredrawn conclusions to the apparent end of obviating rather
than eliciting further discussion. To be sure, much of the
experience thus far gathered in the administration of TLD space
can be stated in categoric and largely uncontroversial terms. It
does not follow that key issues which have yet to be addressed
successfully should be abandoned with no further attempt at
identifying and transcending the underlying difficulties. Why,
otherwise, has this entire exercise been undertaken?
The specific point that I wish to question is:
> 4. It is often suggested that strict gTLD categories should be created
> and registrants forced to comply with those rules. However, note that
> attempts to pre-screen registrations for suitability in registering in
> specific gTLDs have so far not been successful. For example, the gTLD
> .net used to have a requirement that the registrant be a networking
> service provider. This was eventually found impossible to enforce since
> entities who desired a specific name under .net would find a way to
> circumvent this qualification.
> . . .
> Verifying [applications for registration in restricted domains] would
> most likely require pre-screening activities by domain name registrars
> (as is the case in the UK with plc.uk and ltd.uk) and probably result in
> increased registration costs and submission of proof of related legal
> status.
Although no attempts are currently made to enforce rules for
qualifying within .net, applications for .edu are subjected to
scrutiny. The three-letter domains .gov and .int are also
carefully controlled. Many of the ISO-3166 domains exercise
stringent control over generic 2LDs. The time and expense that an
applicant might regard as reasonable for registration in a
restricted domain must be judged in light of the perceived value
of belonging to that domain. The inadequacy of previous
experience says little about the extent to which more
satisfactory mechanisms can be developed. Nor should the
potential value of a controlled domain identity as a device for
locating network resources maintained by a homogeneous sector be
discounted a priori.
It has been clearly stated that the number of new gTLDs may be
substantially increased once robust mechanisms for shared gTLD
maintenance have been deployed. A suitable basis for the
selection of the additional gTLDs is still the subject of heated
debate. Indeed, the present RFC proceeding illustrates a lack of
certainty about what to include in the first set. Care has been
taken to avoid present action resulting in undue constraint on
future gTLD names. One example is the reservation of all
two-letter top level domains for future ISO-3166 country-code
allocations and the corollary disallowal of equivalent business
legal abbreviations commonly used in other languages. Another
example is having considered it prudent to hold present
three-letter ISO-3166 country codes in reserve.
I would like to register a plea for similar caution to be applied
to an additional aspect of the proposed initial new gTLDs.
Although I will be speaking exclusively from the point of view of
a representative of the museum community, similar conditions may
apply to other of the present proposals. I would also suspect
that the situation within the archive and library communities
strongly resembles that of museums.
> d) .arts (for entities emphasizing cultural and entertainment
> activities), check one of the below:
strongly disapprove _x_
> If you disapprove or strongly disapprove, what gTLD would you suggest in
> place of .arts in this category? ______
Keen interest in providing what is often termed "multimedia
access to the cultural heritage" has been displayed by high-level
multinational bodies. Both the G7 and EU have expended
considerable energy in developing mechanisms for equitable
interaction between the agencies managing the heritage
repositories and bodies with market interest in that material.
Museums have a significant role in this process and are
establishing a network presence of commensurate scope.
ICOM has close to one thousand institutional members and a large
number of its 13,000 individual members work at museums that do
not have corporate membership status. There are also national
museum organizations with substantial memberships. These
organizations can make no claim at their memberships exhaustively
including the entire community. Although it will admittedly
provide only the roughest indicator of the extent of present
museum participation in the Net, the interested reader may wish
to query one of the standard Web indexing robots for material
under the heading "museum".
Even if it might be premature to suggest the creation of a
.museum at the outset of the gTLD expansion, a substantial case
can be made for the establishment of such a domain at a later
date. Unfortunately, none of the gTLDs currently under discussion
is suitable for the entire museum sector. Although .arts is
appropriate for art and closely related museums, far and away the
largest museums are those specializing in science, technology and
natural history. These normally regard themselves as research
institutions or in the service of industry, with only secondary
affiliation to cultural activities and absolutely none to either
arts or entertainment.
Taking .arts into operation will certainly open a rift within the
museum community. Without in any way suggesting that many museums
might not thrive quite well there, it would be most unfortunate
if the discussion of the potential utility of a gTLD suitable for
the entire museum community were to become moot at the outset of
the gTLD expansion. Although the present division of TLD space
offers no obvious basis for the development of a coherent museum
platform, it is now that the matter is under discussion. It can
be argued that any organizations registrering in .arts would
remain free to register in .museum but experience suggests a low
degree of likelihood of any organization migrating from a domain
in which it has become established, for any reason whatsoever. In
the best of cases, the .arts museums might end up registering in
multiple domains. If any value is placed on avoiding effects of
this sort, appropriate action would best be taken when selecting
the initial new gTLDs.
If and when the time comes for discussing a controlled museum
TLD, ICOM would be well suited for providing an authoritative
point of reference and/or review to assist the registrars in
establishing and enforcing rules for its operation. The obvious
alternative of establishing a 2LD registry for museums has also
been considered and is one of the reasons for the creation of
REMUNERE. There is a museum.org which is currently being taken
into operation for museum organizations. Issues of liability,
which needn't be elaborated upon for the present readership, have
as yet exerted a braking influence on the opening of the domain
for individual museums (as defined in ICOM's statutes, which are
often applied in governmental and other legal contexts).
It is sincerely hoped that the gTLD registrars will, at some
point, be able to operate a dedicated museum TLD. I am convinced
that such a domain would have significant value both to the
public and to the registrars. The creation of .arts will not
serve as a positive contribution towards that end. From the
commercial point of view, this limitation to the scope of the new
gTLD's immediate remunerative value could clearly be offset by a
more carefully conceived structure that does not conjoin culture
and entertainment. The latter sphere could as easily be included
in .rec. The former could profitably be redefined in fuller
consideration of the points that I attempt to make above.
If the POC wishes to consider the immediate establish of a
dedicated museum TLD, I have have been authorized to offer ICOM's
support towards that end.
- - -
Cary Karp Department of Information Technology
mailto:ck@nrm.se Swedish Museum of Natural History
http://ck.nrm.se/ Svante Arrheniusv. 3
Phone: +46 8 666 4055 Box 50007
Fax: +46 8 666 4235 104 05 Stockholm, Sweden