Re: [ga] ICANN Officially Approves .jobs and .travel TLD's

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

I read recently some comments, (perhaps over at circle id) about the second level tiering and how it is not being optimized. So I pulled out my book by Claire Kramsch called Language and Culture, written for Oxford. Looked at some old stuff by Hans Klein. And reviewed some of that technical writing out of the IETF. Those RF thingies need to be updated more often. 
 
The only logical conclusion one can draw is that these new TLDs are just money scams. There is absolutey no rational reason that .JOB is not ----.job.com or ----.jobs.EU. It goes like this; I am translating Acts 1-14 from a Vietnamese bible into spanish. Well this makes absolutely no sense as there are many Spanish versions, and of course it would be easier for me simply to translate from English to Spanish. But it is not a Jesuit activity in futility. By doing it this way I can catch the nuance of Southeast Asian Christianity and aid Latin American Clergy to understand them a little better. Besides it is easier than the Koran. I mention this because people judge us by the words we use. ICANN is using words without regard for their larger impact. They cheapen language and thereby cheapen the Internet. Each real Pro is cheapened by dotPRO and each middleaged woman looking for work is now cheapened by dotJOBS. Perhaps the most lucrative industry on the net - travel really needs
 dotTRAVEL - Bullshit.
Jefsey is completely on point about this hierarchtecal (sp still can't spell it) comparison with the Catholic church. Someone needs to go back to the basics of 1997.
 
e
 
ps. What is this dam@xxxxxxxxx? Shouldn't it be with an n? 

Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jeff's comments here are bang on target:

"we have already seen with .pro, enforcement is not there effectively"
"an analogy might be, spare the rod, spoil the child. No use of the rod in
ICANN's case, who do not have the rod - which means the child,
Registrars/Registries, will be spoiled and run amuck... So we have seen
with .pro thus far, and will likely see with .jobs, .xxx. .asia, .travel,
and especially with .mail and .tel..."
"will such sTLD's have real meaning? Not likely as we have seen with .pro.
Hence then, market forces need the help of others to provide regulation
and/or legislation: i.e. pre-emptive rules"

Unless some degree of enforcement is applied by ICANN, these sTLD registries
will be defined solely by market forces, with Registrar or Registries
deciding what to do with them. The need for integrity of identity, and
verification, will then become secondary to the ability to sell domains to
anyone. It is not unreasonable to expect pre-emptive Agreements to be
adhered to, *including the intentions of the sTLD and its processes of
verification* and for Registries to administer these TLDs responsibly in
accordance with the purpose, spirit, and intent of the Agreements...

... or face enforcement, or ultimately loss of the Registry when it comes up
for review.

I really have to question the quality of work by whoever takes
responsibility for drafting ICANN's loose and flimsy contracts/agreements.
We have seen, time after time, poor advice or wording resulting in problems
which could have been avoided (such as the Auerbach case, the .info
Sunrise - though that was more a lack of enforcement - and here, the loose
wording of the .pro agreement which has made it possible for a company to
exploit a loophole, even if the Registry still seems to be in defiance of
the stated and well-recognised intentions and purposes of its Agreement,
actually using the verification process to allow unverified people access to
the TLD, when the whole point was to use it for the opposite purpose).

It's staggering. The Registry Agreement makes such clear statements of the
intention of a "restricted" registry using verification for the purposes of
'keeping unchecked people out', and in practical terms RegistryPro have
broken their Agreement by ignoring the clear *intentions* of the Agreement
and its Verification processes, by actually using verification to give
unchecked people access to domain names reserved for specific sets of
professionals. The Agreement, in my opinion, has been broken - breach of
its clear purposes and intended outcomes, and misuse of its verification
processes to bypass the basic intentions of the Agreement.

So yes, Jeff - and ICANN - we need pre-emptive rules. But they need to be
sharp, enforcing, penalty-related rules which will result in TLDs being
defined by the consensus work of many constituencies... not the whim and
fancy of a single registrar or registry out for a quick buck.

Otherwise no sTLD can be taken seriously, and we may as well abort the whole
project.

Yrs,

Richard H


		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!