[ga] The Wildcard Debate

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

The recent Tralliance request for wildcard service
hinges on the following comment:  "We are proposing to
offer a wild card service nearly identical to the
service currently offered by .museum."

At issue is why .museum is still allowed to offer a
wildcard service in view of earlier SSAC
recommendations.  

Complicating matters is the fact that ICANN has a
non-discriminatory treatment clause in its bylaws:  

"ICANN shall not apply its standards, policies,
procedures, or practices inequitably or single out any
particular party for disparate treatment unless
justified by substantial and reasonable cause, such as
the promotion of effective competition."

This clause would seem to imply that .travel should
equally have a right to utilize a wildcard service as
long as .museum has one in operation.  Both TLDs have
a limited number of active registrations (.travel has
under 20,000; .museum around 500) and both may be
regarded as small well-organized TLDs that meet the
intention for wildcard use in "narrow contexts".

The July 2004 SSAC report stated:  "it was generally
intended to be used only in narrow contexts (for
example, MX records for e-mail applications),
generally within a single enterprise, and is currently
used in top-level domains that are generally small and
well-organized."

However, the SSAC also stated:  

"Recommendation (2): Existing use of synthesized
responses should be phased out in TLDs or zones that
serve the public, whose contents are primarily
delegations and glue, and where delegations cross
organizational boundaries."

In evaluating the Tralliance request, we should
probably be asking if ICANN intends to phase out the
.museum wildcard service as recommended by the SSAC.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com