Re: [council] RE:NC Meeting

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@corenic.org>]

i do too...
which is why i recommended in the e-mail i sent out that the future
treleconferences be balanced to accomodate this problem...

ken stubbs
----- Original Message -----
From: Chicoine, Caroline <chicoinc@PeperMartin.com>
To: 'Erica Roberts' <erica.roberts@melbourneit.com.au>; Ken Stubbs
<kstubbs@corenic.org>; Elisabeth PORTENEUVE
<Elisabeth.PORTENEUVE@cetp.ipsl.fr>; names council <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 6:15 PM
Subject: RE: [council] RE:NC Meeting


> I agree wholeheartedly with Erica!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erica Roberts [mailto:erica.roberts@melbourneit.com.au]
> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 4:58 PM
> To: Ken Stubbs; Elisabeth PORTENEUVE; names council
> Subject: [council] RE:NC Meeting
>
>
> i am requesting a teleconference names council meeting for thursady march
30
> or friday march31 as indicated in our recent meeting in Cairo. Please
notify
> me by monday  4pm EST (10pm CET) as to which day you feel is best. the
> meeting will be held this time at the time we have used previously for
> teleconferences (9amEST)
>
> Either date is fine by me but I would ask for a change of time.  It seems
> that every ICANN meeting is held at 9.00 EST  - which is 1.00AM for me!
> This is becoming a major challenge and I request a change of time.  If we
> cannot find a time when there is a reasonable chance that everybody is at
> least be awake, perhaps we could rotate the time so that the pain is
shared.
>
> erica
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Ken Stubbs
> Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2000 11:42 PM
> To: Elisabeth PORTENEUVE; names council
> Subject: [council] Working Group "C" final report
>
>
> I hope all of you got back from cairo  and are on the way back to good
> health (specifically mikael)
>
> below is the final report for working group "c" your review. I will ask
> elizabeth to post this for comments as well on monday.
>
> i am requesting a teleconference names council meeting for thursady march
30
> or friday march31 as indicated in our recent meeting in Cairo. Please
notify
> me by monday  4pm EST (10pm CET) as to which day you feel is best. the
> meeting will be held this time at the time we have used previously for
> teleconferences (9amEST)
>
> the next Names council meeting after this will be scheduled in the later
> part of the day to accomodate the pacific rim members and in the future 1
> out of every three will be scheduled this way to provide some sort of
equity
> here. ( i am sure that you all would feel that this is only fair)
>
> we MUST finalize a budget for the names council at this upcoming meeting.
we
> are receiving a significant amount of heat & criticism from outside
>
> if you have any proposed agenda items please submit them to me by the
monday
> deadline as well.
>
> best wishes
>
> ken
>
> > ------------------------
> >
> > Report (Part One) of
> > Working Group C of the Domain Name Supporting Organization
> > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> >
> >
> > This document is Part One of the Report of Working Group C.  It sets out
> > the rough consensus of  the group regarding whether there should be new
> > generic top-level domains (gTLDs), and if so, how quickly they should be
> > added to the root as an initial matter.
> >
> > Introduction and summary
> >
> > Working Group C has reached rough consensus on two issues. The first is
> > that ICANN should add new gTLDs to the root.  The second is that ICANN
> > should begin the deployment of new gTLDs with an initial rollout of six
to
> > ten new gTLDs, followed by an evaluation period.  This report will
address
> > each of these issues separately.  For each of the issues, it will
> summarize
> > the discussions within the working group, arguments pro and con, and
> > comments received from the public.  It will then briefly summarize the
> > ongoing work of the group.
> >
> > Procedural and outreach history
> >
> > The Names Council approved the charter of Working Group C on June 25,
> > 1999, and named Javier Sola (Business constituency) as its chair.  On
July
> > 29, the working group members elected Jonathan Weinberg co-chair.  The
> > working group includes extensive representation from each of the
> > constituencies.  It is open to anyone who wishes to join, and currently
> has
> > about 140 members, many of whom are inactive. (For most of the life of
the
> > working group, no NSI representative participated.  When WG-C's co-chair
> > solicited greater participation from the Registry constituency, Don
Telage
> > explained that NSI had chosen not to involve itself in the WG-C process.
> > That representational gap has been filled now that Roger Cochetti and
Tony
> > Rutkowski, WG-C members from the start, have joined NSI in senior
> > policymaking capacities.)
> >
> > On October 23, 1999, the Working Group released its Interim Report.
That
> > report described the issues on which the Working Group had reached rough
> > consensus to date.  It also included seven "position papers," setting
out
> > alternative scenarios for the introduction of new gTLDs.  Those position
> > papers usefully illustrate alternate approaches to expanding the name
> > space, and address a broader range of issues than does this Report; they
> > are available at
> <http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19991023.NCwgc-report.html>.
> >
> > On November 23, 1999, the Names Council formally requested public
comment
> > on the Interim Report.  This call for comments was publicized on a
variety
> > of mailing lists maintained by the DNSO, including ga-announce, ga, and
> > liaison7c (which includes the constituency secretariats).  In addition,
> > WG-C's co-chair spoke at the meetings of most of the constituencies at
the
> > Los Angeles ICANN meeting, and urged constituency members to file
> comments.
> > Nearly 300 comments were filed in response to the interim report.  They
> > included responses from leading members of all of the constituencies but
> > two - the record does not include comments from the ccTLD or Registry
> > constituencies (although ccTLD members participated in the discussions
> that
> > led to the Interim Report, and WG-C's co-chair expressly solicited the
> > comments of both of those groups).
> >
> > The initial draft of this report was circulated to the working group on
> > March 2, 2000, and the report was presented to the Names Council on
March
> > 8.  The working group approved this revised version of the report in a
> vote
> > that closed on March 20.
> >
> >
> > Issue One - Should There Be New gTLDs?
> >
> > Discussions within the working group
> >
> > The working group quickly -- by mid-July, 1999 -- reached consensus that
> > there should be new global top-level domains.  There was very little
> > dissent from this position.
> >
> > Arguments supporting the consensus position
> >
> > Expanding the number of TLDs will increase consumer choice, and create
> > opportunities for entities that have been shut out under the current
name
> > structure.  Today, .com stands astride the name space: it has more
> > registrations than all other top-level domain names combined, and is ten
> > times the size of the largest ccTLD.  Yet it has become nearly
impossible
> > to register a new simple domain name there: Almost a year ago, in April
> > 1999, a survey found that of 25,500 standard English-language dictionary
> > words, only 1,760 were free in the .com domain.
> >
> > This situation is undesirable.  It requires companies to register
> > increasingly unwieldy domain names for themselves, and is inflating the
> > value of the secondary (speculators') market in .com domain names.
> Existing
> > second-level domain names under the .com TLD routinely change hands for
> > enormously inflated prices. These are legitimate trades of ordinary,
> > untrademarked words; their high prices reflect the artificial scarcity
of
> > common names in existing gTLDs, and the premium on .com names in
> > particular. The inflated value of the speculators' market imposes
> > additional costs on businesses making defensive registrations of domain
> names.
> >
> > Companies that currently have a domain name in the form of
> > <www.companyname.com> have an extremely important marketing and
> > name-recognition tool.  They have an advantage over all other companies
> > that do not have addresses in that form, because the companyname.com
firms
> > are the ones that consumers, surfing the Net, will be able to find most
> > easily.  If the name space is expanded, companies will be able to get
> > easy-to-remember domain names more easily, and the entry barriers to
> > successful participation in electronic commerce will be lowered.
Addition
> > of new gTLDs will allow different companies to have the same
second-level
> > domain name in different TLDs.  Those businesses will have to compete
> based
> > on price, quality and service, rather than on the happenstance of which
> > company locked up the most desirable domain name first.
> >
> > Similarly, addition of new gTLDs could enlarge noncommercial name space,
> > and allow the creation of top-level domains designed to serve
> noncommercial
> > goals.  One proposal made in WG-C, widely applauded in the public
> comments,
> > advocated the creation of a new top-level domain to be operated by North
> > American indigenous peoples.  Other examples are easy to imagine.
> >
> > Creation of new generic top-level domains can be beneficial in other
> > respects.
> >  One proposal before WG-C, with significant support, urges the creation
of
> > multiple registries, each capable of managing registrations for multiple
> > TLDs, so as to eliminate the single point of failure for the
registration
> > process.  Under this view, multiple new gTLDs are necessary to support
the
> > multiple registries needed for stability.
> >
> > Adding new gTLDs to the root, finally, is an important part of ICANN's
> > mandate.  ICANN was created because the institutions that preceded it
were
> > unable to resolve the intense political and economic conflicts created
by
> > demand for new top-level domain names. The U.S. Department of Commerce's
> > White Paper saw the establishment of policy "for determining the
> > circumstances under which new TLDs are added to the root system" as one
of
> > ICANN's fundamental goals.
> >
> > Arguments opposing the consensus position
> >
> > Three arguments were made in WG-C that cut against the addition of new
> > gTLDs.  First, some working group members suggested that the perceived
> need
> > for new gTLDs was illusory.  Public commenters raising this issue
included
> > Bell Atlantic and Marilyn Cade.
> >
> > Second, some working group members suggested that an increase in the
> > number of top-level domains could confuse consumers, because it would be
> > harder for consumers to keep in mind and remember a larger set of
> top-level
> > domains.  Accordingly, any increase in the number of new gTLDs should be
> > cautious.  Notwithstanding requests, though, no working group member
> > offered studies or other evidence backing up this view.
> >
> > Finally, some working group members raised trademark policing concerns:
> > Expansion of the domain space will create additional opportunities for
the
> > registration of domain names that are confusingly similar to existing
> > trademarks.  It will present a risk that bad actors will seek to confuse
> > consumers by registering SLD strings identical to those registered by
> > others in other TLDs.  It will likely increase trademark owners'
policing
> > costs and the costs of defensive registrations.
> >
> > The relationship between domain names and trademark rights presents an
> > important and difficult issue, and is appropriately addressed by
registry
> > data maintenance requirements, dispute resolution mechanisms such as the
> > UDRP, and any other device that ICANN may choose to adopt, as well as by
> > national legislation. Trademark owners' concerns in this regard are
> > important ones, and not to be overlooked.  In public comments on the
> > Interim Report, a substantial number of commenters urged that deployment
> > should be delayed until after implementation of the uniform dispute
> > resolution procedure, improved domain name registration procedures, and
> > adoption of a system for protecting famous marks.  They included, among
> > others, Jonathan Cohen (then an NC member, IPC), Dr. Victoria
Carrington,
> > AOL, British Telecom, Disney, INTA, Nintendo of America and Time Warner.
> > Steven Metalitz expressed a similar view: "New gTLD's should be
> inaugurated
> > only when, and to the extent that, established and proven procedures are
> in
> > place in the existing gTLD's to improve the quality and accessibility
of
> > registrant contact data, as well as satisfactory dispute resolution
> > procedures."  The comments of the WG-C Rapporteur of the Business &
> > Commercial constituency urged, on behalf of the constituency, that
> > "business requirements such as the effective implementation of the UDRP
> and
> > international business practices such as jurisdictional domains"should
be
> > addressed satisfactorily before new gTLDs are deployed.  The Software
and
> > Information Industry Association noted its support for adding new gTLDs,
> > but only after the creation of a robust, responsive whois system.
> >
> > Other commenters, by contrast, do not believe that trademark-related
> > concerns justify delay in the introduction of new gTLDs.  These included
> > Hirofumi Hotta (NC member, ISPCPC) (emphasizing that discussion of
> > famous-mark protection should not delay the gTLD rollout), Kathryn
Kleiman
> > (NC member, NCDNHC), Michael Schneider (NC member, ISPCPC), Computer
> > Professionals for Social Responsibility, Melbourne IT, AXISNET (Peruvian
> > Association of Users and ISPs), the United States Small Business
> > Administration's Office of Advocacy, Register.com, InterWorking Labs,
> > Tucows.com, InterAccess Company and PSI-Japan.    Raul Echeberria (then
an
> > NC member, NCDNHC) filed comments urging that the establishment of new
> > gTLDs was important and positive, but that rules should be devised to
> avoid
> > massive speculative purchases of domains in the new TLDs, or trademark
> > holders simply duplicating their existing domains.
> >
> > Within the working group, the argument that ICANN should impose
> > substantial delays on the initial deployment of new gTLDs in the
interest
> > of adopting or perfecting trademark- protective mechanisms won little
> > support except from Intellectual Property constituency members.
> >
> > Public comments
> >
> > The discussion above canvasses many of the public comments received.  By
> > far the largest set of comments, however, addressed a specific
> > implementation of the principles discussed above.  Nearly 180 commenters
> (a
> > majority of the comments filed) supported the creation of a particular
> > proposed new domain: .NAA, proposed as a new gTLD to be run by North
> > American indigenous peoples.
> >
> >
> > Issue Two - What Should be the Nature of the Initial Rollout?
> >
> > Discussions within the working group
> >
> > In working group discussions, members of the working group initially
> > expressed sharply varying positions on the nature of the initial
rollout.
> > Some working group members urged that ICANN should immediately announce
> its
> > intention to authorize hundreds of new gTLDs over the course of the next
> > few years.  While ICANN might interrupt that process if it observed
> serious
> > problems with the rollout, the presumption would be in favor of
deployment
> > to the limits of the technically feasible and operationally stable.  If
> > ICANN simply deployed a small number of new gTLDs with no commitment to
> add
> > more, they argued, the public would have to make registration decisions
> > based on the possibility that the small number of new gTLDs would be the
> > only options.  This would give the new registries oligopoly power and
the
> > ability to earn greater-than-competitive profits; it would encourage
> > pre-emptive and speculative registrations based on the possibility of
> > continued artificial scarcity.  By contrast, they urged, an ICANN
decision
> > to deploy a large number of gTLDs would enable competition and a level
> > playing field: If ICANN announced an intention to add hundreds of new
> gTLDs
> > over a three-year period, no new registry could exercise market power
> based
> > on the prospect of a continued artificial scarcity of names.
> >
> > Other working group members took the opposite approach.  New gTLDs, they
> > urged, could seriously aggravate the problems facing trademark
> > rightsholders in the existing domain name space.  Accordingly, they
urged,
> > new gTLDs should be introduced only slowly and in a controlled manner,
and
> > only after effective trademark protection mechanisms had been
implemented
> > and shown to be effective.
> >
> > A third set of working group members took still another approach.  In
the
> > long term, they stated, it would be desirable for ICANN to allow the
> > deployment of new gTLDs to the limits of the technically feasible and
> > operationally stable.  As a short-term matter, however, the immediate
> > deployment of hundreds of new TLDs would not be prudent.  The
> operationally
> > safer course, rather, should be to deploy a smaller number, and to
follow
> > that deployment with an evaluation period during which the Internet
> > community could assess the initial deployment.  ICANN would go on to
> deploy
> > additional TLDs if no serious problems arose in the initial rollout.
> >
> > The proposal that ICANN start by deploying six to ten new TLDs, followed
> > by an evaluation period, was crafted as a compromise position to bridge
> the
> > gap separating the three groups, and to enable a rough consensus to form
> in
> > the middle ground.
> >
> > In September 1999, the WG-C co-chairs made the determination that the
> > working group had reached rough consensus supporting the compromise
> > position.  Because there had been no formal consensus call, though, the
> > working group held a vote in December 1999 to reaffirm that consensus.
> > Following the lead of Working Group B, the working group determined in
> > advance that a two-thirds margin would constitute adequate evidence of
> > rough consensus.  The vote reaffirmed the "six to ten, followed by an
> > evaluation period" compromise position as the rough consensus of the
> > working group, by a margin of 44 to 20.  (A substantial number of
working
> > group members did not cast votes.  In addition, some working group
> members,
> > having been solicited to vote, sent messages to the list explaining that
> > they were declining to take a position at that time, and listed
themselves
> > as consequently abstaining.  Neither the non-voters nor the abstainers
> were
> > counted in figuring the two-thirds majority.)
> >
> > Arguments supporting the consensus position
> >
> > The "six to ten, followed by an evaluation period" consensus position
has
> > the advantage of being a compromise proposal supported by a wide range
of
> > working group members.  In a bottom-up, consensus-driven organization,
> > broad agreement on a policy path is valuable for its own sake.  The
sense
> > of the bulk of the working group is that this proposal strikes an
> > appropriate balance between slower, contingent deployment of new gTLDs
and
> > faster, more nearly certain, deployment.
> >
> > Arguments opposing the consensus position
> >
> > Three arguments were made in the working group against the proposal.
The
> > first was that the contemplated initial deployment was too large;
rather,
> > some WG members urged, it would be appropriate, following the
> > implementation of effective intellectual property protections, for ICANN
> to
> > roll out no more than two or three new gTLDs.  The second argument was
> that
> > the contemplated initial deployment was too *small*: that, as detailed
> > above, a deployment of only six to ten, without an upfront commitment to
> > roll out many more, will be a half-measure that would grant oligopoly
> power
> > to the lucky registries selected for the initial rollout.
> >
> > Commenters expressed agreement with each of these positions:  Bell
> > Atlantic and Marilyn Cade supported the introduction of just a single
new
> > gTLD at the outset; British Telecom and Time Warner urged the initial
> > rollout of only a few.  The submission of the WG-C Rapporteur of the
> > Business & Commercial constituency, on behalf of that constituency,
urged
> > that ICANN should start with a "very small number" of new gTLDs.  Other
> > commenters, including Jonathan Cohen (then an NC member, IPC), Dr.
> Victoria
> > Carrington, AOL, Disney and Nintendo of America, generally endorsed the
> > statement that the introduction of new gTLDs should be slow and
> controlled,
> > and should incorporate an evaluation period.
> >
> > By contrast, Hirofumi Hotta (NC member, ISPCPC), Kathryn Kleiman (NC
> > member, NCDNHC), Michael Schneider (NC member, ISPCPC), Computer
> > Professionals for Social Responsibility, AXISNET, InterWorking Labs,
> > Tucows.com and InterAccess Company supported the  position that ICANN
> > should, at the outset, announce a schedule for introducing hundreds of
new
> > TLDs.  The Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration
> concluded
> > that ICANN should start with a limited introduction of new TLDs followed
> by
> > an evaluation period, but that ICANN should announce in advance that it
> > would continue with a steady introduction of additional TLDs so long as
> > pre-announced technical criteria were met.    Raul Echeberria (then an
NC
> > member, NCDNHC) stated that ICANN should evaluate the operation and
market
> > acceptance of the TLDs added in the initial rollout before creating or
> > announcing more.  Melbourne IT, PSI-Japan and Register.com all supported
> > the compromise position of an initial rollout of six to ten new gTLDs
> > followed by an evaluation period.
> >
> > Most WG members concluded that a deployment of fewer than 6-10 would not
> > give ICANN the information that it would need to make sensible later
> > decisions, and was smaller than caution dictated.  At the same time,
most
> > WG-C members felt that an initial commitment to many more than 6-10
would
> > not be operationally sound.  Until we see the consequences for the
domain
> > name space of adding new gTLDs, there are advantages to a more
circumspect
> > path.
> >
> > The final objection raised was that the consensus agreement answered the
> > wrong question: The working group, said some, should not be addressing
the
> > number of new gTLDs at all before resolving such issues as whether the
new
> > top-level domains should be general-purpose (like .com),
special-purpose,
> > or some combination of the two.  These issues are discussed in this
report
> > under the heading of "ongoing work," and certainly it would not have
been
> > inappropriate for the WG to have sought to reach conclusions on those
> > matters before discussing Issue Two.  But most members of the working
> group
> > concluded that the size of the initial rollout could and should be
> > addressed first, before resolving less tractable issues.
> >
> > Ongoing work
> >
> >         Remaining questions before the working group include how the new
> > gTLDs deployed in the initial rollout, and their associated registries,
> > should be selected.  In initial discussion and straw polls on this
issue,
> > working group members fell into several camps.  One group urged that
ICANN
> > should first select new gTLD strings, and only then call for
applications
> > from registries wishing to operate those TLDs.  A second group urged
that
> > ICANN should select new gTLD registries on the basis of objective
> criteria,
> > and allow the registries to choose their own gTLDs in response to market
> > considerations.  A third group suggested that registries should apply
> > describing their proposed gTLDs, and that an ICANN body or process would
> > then make selections taking into account the characteristics of both the
> > registry and its proposed gTLD. The working group considered the third
> > option, viewed as a possible middle ground, as a consensus call,
relating
> > only to the initial rollout of six to ten new gTLDs.
> >
> > Thirteen "yes" votes were cast in that consensus call, and five "no"
> > votes.  While the votes cast were markedly in favor, it's the view of
the
> > co-chair that a finding of rough consensus, at this date, would be
> > premature.  Only a small number of people voted:  In contrast to the 64
> > votes cast on the consensus call relating to the size of the initial
> > deployment (well over half of the membership of the WG at the time),
only
> > eighteen people chose to cast a vote on this matter.  Even some active
> > participants in the discussion of the consensus call did not cast votes.
> > This makes the vote less reliable as a gauge of the views of the working
> > group as a whole.  Other factors making it difficult to draw an
> unambiguous
> > consensus from the vote include the facts that some of those who voted
> > "yes" added additional caveats conditioning their support, and that
voters
> > may have had varying understandings as to how the term "registry" in the
> > consensus call should be understood, and what an application would
entail.
> > ("No" voters urged both that the consensus proposal would give too much
> > discretionary authority to ICANN, and that it would preclude ICANN from
> > considering gTLD proposals that came from entities other than would-be
> > registries.)
> >
> > It appears to be the sense of the working group, among both supporters
and
> > opponents of the consensus call, that ICANN's selection process should
be
> > procedurally regular and guided by pre-announced selection criteria.
> > Further, it appears to be the sense of the working group that the
> namespace
> > should have room for both limited-purpose gTLDs (which have a charter
that
> > substantially limits who can register there) and open, general-purpose
> > gTLDs.  The working group extensively discussed a set of eight
principles,
> > drafted by Philip Sheppard (NC member, Business) and Kathryn Kleiman (NC
> > member, NCDNHC), against which applications for new TLDs might be
judged.
> > The proposed principles, in their current iteration, incorporate the
> > keywords Certainty, Honesty, Differentiation, Competition, Diversity,
> > Semantics, Multiplicity and Simplicity.  However, the working group has
> not
> > so far achieved a consensus on the content or usefulness of the
> principles.
> >
> > Conclusion
> >
> > In summary, Working Group C has reached rough consensus on two issues.
The
> > first is that ICANN should add new gTLDs to the root.  The second is
that
> > ICANN should begin the deployment of new gTLDs with an initial rollout
of
> > six to ten new gTLDs, followed by an evaluation period.  The working
group
> > is continuing to address other issues, including the mechanism through
> > which new gTLDs and registries should be selected.  While there is
> > sentiment within the working group for the compromise position that
> > registries should apply describing their proposed gTLDs, and that an
ICANN
> > body or process should make selections taking into account the
> > characteristics of both the registries and their proposed gTLDs, a
finding
> > of rough consensus on this point would be premature.
> >
> > --------------
> >
> > A detailed summary of the public comments on the working group's Oct.
23,
> > 1999 interim report is available at
> > <http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc01/msg00490.html>.
> >
>