Peter Gerrand wrote:
> My personal view is that given that the proposed new 2LDs (a) are
designed
> ...

The iPOC has just been through a process of creating new domains.  They
had a lot of trouble settling on the right names.   They got together
and thought about it.  Once they had a start they advertised a process
to solicit public input on their website for a few months.  The results
are at http://www.gtld-mou.org/docs/rfc-results.htm#97-02.

Among the submissions, I liked the last two paragraphs (reproduced
below) of: http://www.gtld-mou.org/notice-97-02/0078.html.

Note that POC is the oversight body, not the registrar(s).  No voting
member of POC stands to make a bean out of registrar activities.

Cheers -

Leni.
====================
The creation of a small set of new gTLDs must proceed, and the names
don't really matter that much.  In the long run I favor MANY new TLDs
-- in the thousands, perhaps.  In the short run, however, after the
creation of this first few I think the POC get out of the TLD creation
business entirely.  Instead, it should bend its efforts to creating a
formal method, agreed to by IANA, IETF, and a variety of other groups,
for creating new TLDs, whether generic or not.  In my eyes the MoU
will have served its primary purpose by making shared registries the
standard at the TLD level.

The problem of TLD creation remains unsolved, and it needs to be
solved.  Even within the above short list of gTLDs there are
significant problems lurking -- you hint at them in the .nom domain,
and in the .firm domain when you mention the legal designation
domains.  Legal designation domains *should* exist.  Registrars that
register for them *should* do the checking, and *should* charge extra
for the service.  What is needed is a mechanism for enforcable
charters for TLDs, and a method for creating TLDs with such charters.
I believe we now know enough to proceed on this problem, and the POC
and PAB should address it.


--
Kent Crispin
====================