Discuss mailing list

[Brian Koontz <brian AT pongonova.net>]

On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 01:22:43PM +0200, Psilo wrote:
> Note that we can create some "TLD suspension rules" such as  "OpenNIC should
> be able to contact the TLD manager easily", "the TLD root DNS must be
> reliable", "some domains have to be registered and pointing to valid IP
> addresses", etc. Then if a TLD like BZH breaks one or several of these
> rules, we can vote to suspend the TLD, and give the TLD manager a grace
> period before we remove it from OpenNIC...

Along those lines, and speaking as an OpenNICer who has been here
since the K5 post that started it all:

It used to be that some TLDs would lay dormant for months or even
years before someone finally took notice and said "hey, this isn't
being used anymore, let's get rid of it."  But if you think about it,
TLDs really don't take up a quantum of effort or energy large enough
that warrants keeping our TLDs down to some "manageable" level.  Quite
the opposite:  If we ever expect to grow, we should be willing to put
up with TLDs of varying activity levels.  This idea of artificially
limiting the TLD pool isn't very good for OpenNIC.  That said, I agree
that some sort of suspension rules might be warranted, but these
should be clearcut and in a format that takes away the time urgency of
the situation.

> Now, about the TLD charters. I really think that one shouldn't decide of
> what is allowed or what is forbidden based on his personal feelings. Clear
> rules can state that the purpose of a domain should be, for example, promote
> the "Breton culture" for BZH, or host a website in this language. But I
> disagree with charters stating "illegal activities are forbidden, such as
> ...". Firstly because the laws are different in every countries, and even a
> lawyer couldn't write a list of illegal activities that would be applicable
> worldwide. Second because this list often contains activities that are
> clearly not illegal, such as P2P or porn. Third, because a TLD organization
> has never been sued for an illegal website. That would be nonsense. Fourth,
> because laws, habits and opinions do change over time. And fifth, because it
> is not necessary to tell people that an illegal activity is illegal.
> Seriously...

The more I think about this, the more I begin to agree with it.  If
anything, OpenNIC should provide a minimal template, with
fill-in-the-blanks for various unique attributes of a TLD, such as
name, owner, additional activities, etc.  The template should
represent the MOST RESTRICTIVE aspects of TLD ownership, and prohibit
any additional provisions that are more restrictive than the template.

At this point, I'm not even sure a vote is necessary.  As long as the
TLD meets OpenNIC guidelines (which have been agreed to previously by
the membership), then there should be a policy of automatic granting
of a TLD without the need for a membership vote.

This might better encourage the growth of TLDs.  Sure, there will be
some TLDs registered that never get used.  But so what? 

There are some very good ideas in Psilo's parent post...

  --Brian