PAB Charters for gTLDs (comments)

John Charles Broomfield (jbroom@outremer.com)
Mon, 02 Mar 1998 11:43:35 -0400


To all,
I'd like to express my strongest disagreement with most (all?) of the
charters proposed by Mr. William Allen Simpson.

The main points I disagree with are those that state who can or can't
register
a domain, the obligations placed on the registrant in some cases which
seems
to oblige him to take roles as a register, the demands for more than two
active nameservers, and the rule of not registering in other domains.

While those points listed above would be nice in some cases to somehow
stem
unneeded proliferation of useless domain names, I find them to be
unenforceable
and/or unreasonable.

If any charter has wording as strong as those that have been proposed,
it
directly demands that there be policing of each domain to be registered.
I
don't know how many of you tried registering a ".net" domain up until
around
start of '95. When you submitted it, depending on the wording that you
wrote
in the "intended use of the domain" part, the name was automatically
accepted,
or you got personal responses back saying what ".net" was for etc... Of
course,
once the amount of registrations grew too much, this type of personal
councelling must have been too costly and was therefore thrown out. Even
at
its peak it was only asking for people to say "this domain will be used
for
networking equipment", so the effectiveness really leaves a lot to be
desired.

If "Madonna" (to use an example that has already come up) wants to have
her
personal website under "maddona.nom", sell records under "madonna.shop",
list
artistic creations under "madonna.arts", and promote a line of
sportswear
(Air-Madonna?) under "madonna.sports", then why the heck shouldn't she
be
allowed to do so?

Domain registration should be accepted or rejected on purely objective
reasoning. Judging if someone 'fits' better under one TLD or another
should
be a decision that only the registrant should take.

To be honest, for the set of 7 gTLDs that we want to get going, I'd be
happy
if we just had some sort of intended purpose (non enforceable) which
would be
merely informative (something similar to what is listed in RFC-1591 as
to
COM/NET/ORG), and apart from that have as reduced a charter as we can
manage.
Something along the lines of 2 name servers, no lame delegations, email
contact, agreement to abide by gTLD-MoU in respect to that domain.

Yours, John Broomfield.