Re: [wg-c] new TLDs

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>]

Milton,

At 10:52 AM 12/23/1999 , Milton Mueller wrote:
>Dave Crocker wrote:
> > At 12:27 AM 12/23/1999 , Karl Auerbach wrote:
> > >The difference is between
> > >ICANN/DNSO imposed charters on gTLDs and letting TLD operators freely
> > >attempt to select criteria, if any, and, if they feel like it, to try to
> > >build a meaning.
> > >The former approach is Internet Governence writ large. It implies a
> > >certification authority to say who fits and who does not, and implies
> > >liability to ICANN for errors.
> > >The latter approach is nothing more than a standard private efforts at
> >
> > You forgot to mention that the former is a continuation of 15 years of
> > operation while the latter is a basic change to DNS administration.
>
>Untrue on both counts. There were no "charters" imposed on any ccTLD registry
>delegated under RFC 1591. There were "charters" on .mil, .gov, and .edu, 
>but not on
>com, net and org. You're also incorrect about the latter being a "basic 
>change" in
>DNS administration. The concept of a domain in RFC 920 is that it is a 
>delegation
>of authority to the domain operator. RFC 920 is only concerned with 
>responsible
>management of the domain for technical stability, not with the criteria 
>that the
>domain manager uses to parcel out names.

We are in the process of defining some formal terms.  The term "gTLDs" 
(generic TLDs) replaced "iTLDs" (international) TLDs, and that was after 
RFC 1591 was issued, by some years.

(The 'g' was chosen, later, specifically due to the use of the word 
'generic' in 1591, although it was and is intended to comprise a smaller 
set than listed in 1591.)

So we all need to be careful about the difference between policies and 
labels.  The labels are being created to refine categorization of new or 
existing policies, such as for different TLD "schemas".


 From RFC 1591:

>    COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is
>          companies.  This domain has grown very large and there is...
>    EDU - This domain was originally intended for all educational
>          institutions.  Many Universities, colleges, schools,
>          educational service organizations, and educational consortia
>          have registered here.  More recently a decision has been taken
>          to limit further registrations to 4 year colleges and
>          universities.  Schools and 2-year colleges will be registered...
>    NET - This domain is intended to hold only the computers of network
>          providers, that is the NIC and NOC computers, the...
>    ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for
>          organizations that didn't fit anywhere else.  Some non-...
>    INT - This domain is for organizations established by international
>          treaties, or international databases.
>    GOV - This domain was originally intended for any kind of government
>          office or agency.  More recently a decision was taken to
>          register only agencies of the US Federal government in this
>          domain.  State and local agencies are registered in the country
>    MIL - This domain is used by the US military.

We see that com/net/org have statements of 'intent' and no more.  We see 
that EDU has stronger language concerning limitations of acceptable 
registration.  The same for INT. The same for GOV.  The same for MIL.


>    organizations.  The country code domains (for example, FR, NL, KR,
>    US) are each organized by an administrator for that country.  These

Here, we see that ccTLDs are subject to constraints concerning acceptable 
registry.

Although we do not yet have a formal definition of 'sponsored' or 
'chartered' the use is typically revolving around a rigorous, pre-hoc 
policy concerning administration of a particular TLD.

In that light, ccTLDs represent an established chartered TLD schema 
(class).  MIL and EDU and INT represent individually chartered TLDs.


> > You also forgot to mention that the former facilitates IANA/ICANN retention
> > of authority and control while the latter imparts "property" to a TLD 
> registry.
>
>Better check with Kent on this. You guys are not singing the same tune.

It would be far more helpful if you dealt with content and merit rather 
than trying for clever ad hominems.

In this case, it is significant that you do not address the potential legal 
impact of letting a registry define TLDs.

As to precedent, please tell us what registry has previously been allowed 
to define a new TLD (and then administer it.)

d/

=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA