[council] Re: Preparations for Cairo: Study session on new TLD registries

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	[Elisabeth -- I would be grateful if you forwarded this message to
council@dnso.org.  Thank you.]

	One of the things we've accomplished in WG-C has been to distill the
competing views of the community (more or less) into the four broad
positions described in the first four position papers in the WG-C interim
report (<http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19991023.NCwgc-report.html>).
Those four papers -- written by Kent Crispin, Caroline Chicoine, Milton
Mueller and me -- pretty much cover folks' differing views on the myriad of
issues encompassed within the debates on addition of new gTLDs, and they
each do so in a cogent and clear manner.  I think it might make sense to
begin a study session with an introduction and overview presented by
someone of unquestioned technical expertise (say, Paul Mockapetris).  We
could then do worse than to ask each of those four people to explain their
opinions and rationales.  (If any of them should consider it inappropriate
to participate, someone else could be named in that person's stead.)

	One problem with this approach is that some of the people I've named are
participating essentially pro bono, and don't have employers or clients
paying their expenses.  This means that they may not be able to afford the
trip to Cairo.  I'm not sure of the best way to handle this.

	I agree that it would make sense also to schedule a study session on
famous marks.  I think it would be a mistake, though, to try and roll new
gTLDs and famous marks into one big meta-discussion.  These are two
relatively intractable issues, and if we roll them together they'll be even
less tractable.  I would schedule separate sessions on the two topics.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg@msen.com



At 04:34 PM 1/7/00 -0500, Andrew McLaughlin wrote:
>To the Names Council:
>
>We've begun to plan the agenda for the ICANN Cairo meetings.  Details are
>being posted at <http://www.icann.org/cairo2000/cairo-details.htm>.
>
>The preliminary agenda for the ICANN Public Forum
><http://www.icann.org/cairo2000/cairo-details.htm#agenda> includes
>discussion of the following topics:
>
>     - At Large Membership and elections
>     - Considerations and policies relating to creation of new top-level
>domain name registries
>     - ccTLD delegation and administration policies
>     - ICANN budget for 2000-2001 fiscal year
>
>I want to initiate a discussion with the Names Council with respect to the
>second item:  considerations and policies relating to the creation of new
>TLD registries.  I've already exchanged a few notes with Jonathan Weinberg
>on the same question, and would like to include him on this discussion.
>
>The Board's notion is to hold a "study session" on the question of new TLDs
>as part of the ICANN Public Forum on March 9.  The study session would
>consist of several hours to be set aside for presentations and discussion,
>including structured presentations by people of differing views with
>opportunities for the Board and other attendees to ask questions and make
>comments.  The basic idea is education:  to provide a forum in which a
>broader audience can learn more about the merits of the debate, and about
>the status of the DNSO's consensus-building process.   Because the session
>will be webcast, we hope to raise general public awareness of the issue of
>new TLDs, and to create a useful multimedia archive of the various arguments
>for and against.  Also, it will allow the attending Board and Names Council
>members to get better educated and to review and contribute toward the
>consensus-building process.
>
>Because the question of new TLDs is squarely within the scope of the DNSO's
>current activities, we want to structure the study session in collaboration
>with the Names Council and Working Group C.  Jonathan Weinberg has expressed
>to me his general support for the idea of a public study session on new
>TLDs, and his willingness to help structure a useful and balanced set of
>presentations.
>
>To get the discussion started, perhaps Jonathan might give us his thoughts
>on how the session should be structured (and who might be good presenters).
>
>--Andrew
>
>
>