Discuss mailing list

[Christopher <weblionx AT gmail.com>]

I agree on the general voting guidelines.
On the 2/3 vote for a TLD, I'd say more than just 50%+1 is probably a
good thing, but actual value might be worth discussing. E.g. 55% vs.
60% vs 66% etc.

For the 30 days for accepting registration, I'd say don't even add
records for the TLD until they get registration working. So it can be
approved but until they can accept domain registrations don't add it.
This way they know it's worth going ahead but have some pressure to
get it up and running. I don't know if it's worth having an automatic
"30 days and it's done" thing. Maybe after, say, 90 days or longer,
but if it needs to be dropped sooner it should probably just go for a
vote.

Back to the first section, regarding proposing a new TLD, I'd say 3
months of running a Tier 2 would probably be good enough. My belief is
we don't want to move too slow on things; the best way to get someone
reliable is to get them involved. I feel like in 3 months it should be
obvious if they're going to keep going or not. Maybe have some rule on
Tier-2 reliability? If they can keep it running with minimal (whatever
we choose on that) downtime, they likely can run a T1 just as well,
and if at that point they have a registration system working, I would
see no reason not to go ahead.

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 6:01 AM, Philipp Schafft <lion AT lion.leolix.org> wrote:
> Good morning,
>
> On Tue, 2017-07-25 at 22:24 -0600, Jeff Taylor wrote:
>> As mentioned, we need to start a discussion of any policy changes
>> regarding TLD proposals.
>
> I very much support this. I also think it is important that the new
> policy will be binding. E.g. a vote must be canceled in my opinion if it
> fails to adhere to the policy for any reason (this is as none of the
> parts of the policy should be considered more important). It should also
> be made clear what is a part of the policy and what are additional
> recommendations and/or comments to it.
>
>
>> To start off the discussion, I thought I'd
>> link to some items I threw together earlier this year, with some
>> additional items and clarifications by Fusl.  The mirror for the old
>> wiki page is here (note do NOT try to login, it will only confuse the
>> mirror)...
>> http://sourpuss.net/mirror/wiki.opennicproject.org/TLDPolicyProposed
>>
>> For comparison, the current rules can be found here:
>> https://wiki.opennic.org/opennic:creating_new_tlds
>
> Sadly I'm offline at the moment of this writing so I can not look them
> up. Will have a look later on and may or may not write another response
> to this.
>
>
>> Many of these items revolve around the voting process itself,
>
> I would suggest to split at this point: Make a policy for creation of
> TLDs and one for votes in general. There are more things to vote about.
> I think a uniform way of voting would be helpful.
>
>> [...]
>
>
>> We should also consider making some rule changes apply to existing
>> TLDs.  For example, the requirement for an opennic.[TLD] web page under
>> each TLD would be very beneficial to visitors and active members alike.
>
> While I like this, there are two problems I see:
>       * Existing TLDs run based on what the community agreed on when it
>         was created. Changing may collide with those agreements. There
>         needs to be a process here. This naturally depends on the exact
>         changes. e.g. enforcing opennic.$TLD, example.$TLD,
>         localhost.$TLD would be much easier to get in than altering
>         terms of usage. Also: this escalates down to the actual users as
>         the rules under wich they registered domains will likely change.
>       * This can not be binding for peered TLDs. I would suggest to make
>         the changes reflect this. However I think that some aspects
>         could be implemented as recommends. e.g. opennic.$TLD should be
>         reserved for OpenNIC's use.
>
>
>> Similarly, it may be a good idea to pool together some ideas under an
>> umbrella clause that would automatically apply to ALL opennic domain,
>
> 'automatically' is something that is very problematic for the reasons
> above. I would suggest to have such a document and TLD operators refer
> to a given version of it. So in case this umbrella set of rules is
> updated the operator can inform users and at some point switch to the
> new revision.
>
>
>> such as a rule against child pornography. While it's good to have an
>> open structure for everyone to enjoy, we really should have *some*
>> principles posted to show that we as a group have certain moral values
>> and are willing to draw a line against undesirable content.
> charta
> This is very problematic as of my understanding: who's moral standards
> do you want to implement? Moral standards aren't related to hard facts,
> they are a set of rules each and every group creates individually. I
> often change between different groups with totally different standards.
> I would like to give you some examples. Starting directly with your
> example:
>       * Different countries have different definitions of 'child' and
>         'pornography'. Last time I checked wikipedia 'child' was defined
>         between 12 and 30, depending on where in the world you are.
>         'pornography' has the same problem. Some places in the world
>         allow it if it's art, some forbid it in all ways, some just
>         don't care, and some don't care as long as specific parts of the
>         body aren't shown (which in some places of the world caused a
>         wave of body modifications).
>       * In some places of the world it is perfectly find to hit your
>         wife, but not to drink alcohol.
>       * In some social groups I participate hugging is strictly for
>         men-and-wife-after-the-dark and in some it's expected greeting.
>
> As moral standards are bound to culture only, not facts, there is no
> right or wrong. There is also no 'basic standards accepted by everyone'.
> That is just an illusion created by the fact that most of us keep to be
> all their life in the same social group. I feel like this will fail the
> same way as each and every discussion on how to forbid commercial use of
> domains we had on this list failed in some way.
>
>
> I hope this mail is of positive input to you and our valued readers.
>
> With best regards,
>
> --
> Philipp Schafft,
> erster Vorsitzender des Fellig e.V.
> chairman of Fellig e.V.
>
>
>
>
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
>