Discuss mailing list

[Jeff Taylor <shdwdrgn AT sourpuss.net>]

Not so much usage enforcement, however I *would* like to open the discussion towards building a common set of rules that should be globally applied to all TLDs.  Sort of like a starting point for the charters, things that we as a group believe should be followed but perhaps we haven't actually written any rules on it.  For example, let's say we all agreed on a policy against intentionally damaging content (like someone hosting malware that is infecting people's computers) -- in this case such a policy would strengthen the support of spamhaus blacklisting certain .bit domains.

Offhand the sort of global policies I'm thinking of would be along the lines of...
- Do not host content which is illegal in the country it is hosted.
- All domains will be registered free of charge. (We seem to get a lot of people with the bright idea of making money by charging for new domains, so let's just squash that stupid idea right at the door.)
- Domain owners need to keep their contact email up to date.  If the domain owner cannot be reached within a reasonable amount of time, the TLD administrator may terminate the domain.  Domain owners also need to watch the mailing list for any global notices and should not expect a personal notification of every issue.
- Registering a domain does not guarantee access to that domain.  Maintainers will do their best to keep DNS services up to date, but shit happens...

And so on.  Just some of the common-sense things that we shouldn't have to explain, and yet we still get asked.  I know there are some very well-written charters out there that would be a good starting point for the rest of us, and I think it would be beneficial to have an umbrella charter for all of opennic which could be modified as needed.  Nothing so restrictive that it might impact the intended content of one of the TLDs, but there are probably a handful of items that really should apply to all TLDs equally.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

On 11/01/2017 05:43 PM, vv AT cgs.pw wrote:

Well that brings a little sanity to this discussion.
Thanks Jeff.

On a related note, I'm still scratching my head
over why it's so important to have a TLD be for
specific uses only. There seems no point in that
if there is no one policing usage. And how many
here are in favour of forming a "TLD Usage Policing
and Enforcement Department"? I suspect not many. :)

Cheers,
       Ole
 

On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 11:46:02 -0600
Jeff Taylor <shdwdrgn AT sourpuss.net> wrote:

As the maintainer of .free/.libre, I've been watching the
threads on this subject with a bit of curiosity.  I am
surprised that not one person actually *asked* for my
opinion on the subject.  On the other hand I'm not
surprised at all that there was absolutely no discussion
on the matter -- personally I believe this signifies that
most people here feel there is really nothing to discuss
on the matter.

So let's discuss two points here.  First off is your
inference that your repeated suggestions on IRC towards
the .libre charter were ignored. However you failed to
mention that the first time I was actually online when
you made this suggestion, we did have a brief discussion
on the matter in which I immediately told you that I have
been planning on reviewing ALL of the charters under my
purview and updating the contents as needed.
Unfortunately time has been limited lately as I have some
paying projects I've been working on. That doesn't mean
your suggestions were ignored or disregarded, it simply
means what it is... I'll get to it when I have the time.

The next issue I want to mention is your fixation on a
dictionary definition of libre and how it supposedly
changes the meaning of the domains registered under the
TLD.  Your unwavering commitment to this incorrect point
of view is what derailed our discussion on IRC and
prevented any real discussion of changes to the charter,
so let me reiterate my point of view...  The .libre TLD
was voted on as a *direct* replacement for .free.  It was
not voted on as "something with a different meaning that
needs a new charter".  In fact the vote was
between .libre and .liber, which probably also has a
different definition if you want to look at the strict
definitions, however none of that matters.  ICANN has
registered .free and it's only a matter of time before
they start officially using it, so the vote was for a
suitable *direct* replacement for .free.  At the time of
the vote there was no discussion regarding changes to the
charter, but the members of opennic did vote to continue
the spirit of .free under a new TLD rather than dropping
it completely.  The point is that we could have voted on
anything as a replacement.  If we had instead chosen to
go with ".monkey" would you be arguing that the charter
needs to be changed to require bananas on every domain?
You were part of the discussion when the vote happened,
so you know what considerations were made, and you are
aware that the new TLD was chosen as something that is
widely recognized to have a *similar* meaning as .free
(noting that we already knew it was not an *exact*
replacement).  Again, the dictionary definition was never
the point, we simply wanted to have a replacement for a
somewhat popular TLD which would take on the same
purpose, including the existing charter and registered
domains.  If you were discussing a new TLD with a charter
that was still being developed then there might be a
reason for this debate, but my opinion is that
since .libre was only created as a direct replacement
for .free, the only discussions we should be having would
have to be related towards the definition of "free" which
was the original and true intent of those domains.

With all of that said, I'll turn back once again to your
original proposal, which was in regards to loosening or
better defining the restrictions on commercial use
of .libre domains.  As mentioned above, nobody ever
*asked* me what I thought of the proposal, and it would
have saved you an awful lot of trouble if you had.  I
actually think it's a good idea and would be beneficial
in clearing up the charter language. The only question
here is WHICH charter...  The suggestions you have
written below are ALSO mostly describing the exact
purpose of .oss domains.  As I am also the maintainer of
that TLD, this gives me something else to think about --
should I still maintain two separate TLDs, or should I
consider the new name for .free as being more inclusive
and able to absorb the purpose and intent of both TLDs?
It's always a tough choice to consider the removal of a
TLD from opennic, and I have a lot of nostalgia towards
one of our very first TLDs created, but I also recognize
that opennic should grow and change to meet the needs of
our members.  If .oss already serves the purpose of the
potentially commercial but free products as described
below, then what purpose would it serve to also allow the
same rules under .libre? However if "libre" now
encompasses the full spirit of what .free and .oss were
intended to be, then does it really make sense to
maintain them separately?

Of course before I make any radical changes I will start
a new discussion and put it to a vote, but hopefully you
understand why making any changes to the .free charter
are not as simple as "the new word means this".  There's
a lot to think about before changing any of the charters,
and I need to weigh the consequences of those changes and
how they might relate towards other existing TLDs.


On 10/29/2017 06:15 AM, Daniel Quintiliani wrote:

Hi,

Here are the results of the vote:

YES (4):
Daniel Quintiliani
Jonah Aragon
Al Beano
Rouben

NO (1):
Christopher

The results are 4-1.
Again the vote is a *nonbinding recommendation* to the
maintainer of the .libre TLD to add the following to
the charter:

"Libre exception to noncommercial use - Commercial use
of a .libre domain is permitted if the primary purpose
is the hosting of, promotion of, or the site itself is:

1) Free content released under a license created or
approved by the Free Software Foundation, 2) Open
source content released under a license created or
approved by the Open Source Initiative, 3) Content
released under a license or waiver created or approved
by Creative Commons, 4) Content in the public domain 5)
Content released under a public domain equivalent
license."

--

-Dan Q



--------
You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
You may unsubscribe by emailing
discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org  

--------
You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org