RE: [council] suggested draft resolution for today's NC call

["Chicoine, Caroline" <chicoinc@PeperMartin.com>]

My understanding is that there are only two consensus issues we need to
decide today.
(1) Should there be new gTLDS  (proposed consensus position in report -yes)
(2) If so, how many (proposed consensus position in report - 6-10)

We must decide whether there is consensus in one, both or neither of these
positions.

With respect to implementation, I think WGC has over the year received the
benefit of numerous comments regarding alternatives for implementation, none
of which have received an overall consensus of the group (at least that is
my understanding).  With respect to this issue, I propose that Jonathan
produced a report summarizing these positions in user friendly language and
that we present these to Icann, with a proposal that Icann and/or the Names
Council develop a task force made up of one person from each Constituency,
as well as a technical person from the ASO and PSO to study these
alternatives during the month of May, post the report for public comment in
June, produce a final report with recommendations before the July meeting
with the hopes it could be voted on at the meeting.  

Just a thought!

Caroline



-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Schneider [mailto:sastre@anwalt.de]
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 10:37 AM
To: Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com
Cc: 'names council'; 'Andrew McLaughlin'; 'Louis Touton'; ispcp@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [council] suggested draft resolution for today's NC call


Theresa,

Thank you for your suggestion, which I find very eloquently formulated. 
However, it assumes, that we support the result of Working Group C to a 
great extent - i.e. without further differentiation - and provide the Board 
with just a single decision option. From my point of view, however, this is 
neither in the sense of the Working Group nor in the interest of the Names 
Council.

Within the working group there were differing opinions which were presented 
with such great emphasis that they cannot be ignored completely. One of 
them is the one, which the ISPCP almost unanimously supports. It can be 
summarized as follows: no new gTLDs or, if inevitable, then very many. The 
"third best" option is from our view to launch only one.

I believe it is much more a task for the Names Council to prepare an 
aggregate presentation of the opinions voiced than pretake the decision. We 
are - even though in the old pre-DNSO-days I was clearly pushing for a 
strong and independent council - an advisor to the board. An advisor 
however may not take the place of his client - he may only use his own 
competency to choose a couple of the most stringent from the numerous 
possibilities and present them in a comprehensive manner.

Therefore we should at least prepare 2-3 alternatives with all of their 
advantages and disadvantages. This does not have to be a long paper (the 
Board could just as well read the WG-C report and I bet some have even done 
so ;-)

Best regards,
Michael

At 10:57 18.04.00 -0400, Theresa Swinehart wrote:
>Dear NC Members -
>For today's NC conference call below is a suggested draft resolution I've
>been thinking about to help guide our discussion.
>Look forward to speaking with all on the NC call -
>Best regards,
>Theresa
>
>
>
>"The Names Council has considered the submittals and reports of Working
>Groups B and C and the various comments submitted on them. We have reviewed
>these reports keeping in mind that the principle goals in the management of
>the domain-name system should be to ensure stability of the Internet as
well
>as make it easier for users to locate the appropriate Internet sites they
>are seeking.
>The Names Council determines that the report of Working Group C and related
>comments indicate that there exists a consensus for the introduction of new
>gTLDs in a careful and responsible manner. The Names Council therefore
>recommends to the ICANN Board that it establish a policy for the
>introduction of new gTLDs in a measured and responsible manner, giving due
>regard in the implementation of that policy to (a) promoting orderly
>registration of names during the initial phases, including minimizing their
>use to extract additional resources from those seeking to protect
>intellectual property rights; (b) minimizing the use of gTLDs to carry out
>infringements of intellectual property rights; and (c) recognizing the need
>for ensuring consumer confidence in the technical operation of the new TLD
>and the DNS as a whole.
>Because there is no recent experience in introducing new gTLDs, we
recommend
>to the Board that a limited number of new top-level domains be introduced
>initially and that the future introduction of additional top-level domains
>be done only after careful evaluation of the initial introduction. The
Names
>Council recognizes that the WG C report indicates that several types of
>domains should be considered in the initial introduction, these being:
fully
>open top-level domains, restricted and chartered top-level domains with
>limited scope, non-commercial domains and personal domains. Implementation
>should promote competition in the domain-name registration business at the
>registry and registrar levels. The Names Council recognizes that any
>roll-out must not jeopardize the stability of the Internet, and assumes a
>responsible process for introducing new gTLDs, which includes ensuring that
>there is close coordination with Internet protocols and standards.
>To assist the Board in the task of introducing new TLDs, the Names Council
>recommends that the ICANN staff invite expressions of interest from parties
>seeking to operate any new TLD registry, with an indication as to how they
>propose to ensure to promote these values.
>We would like to extend our deep appreciation to the substantial number of
>participants who worked so diligently in Working Groups B and C, and want
to
>thank them for their significant efforts in evaluating the issues that were
>referred to them. We urge those participants to continue to contribute
their
>expertise in these issues as these matters move on to consideration by the
>Board and implementation. In particular, should Working Group B complete a
>final report, it should submit that to the ICANN Board before the public
>comment period leading up to the Yokohama ICANN meeting. We intend to
>monitor future progress and stand ready to assist the ICANN Board and Staff
>on these issue as appropriate in the future."

--
  --------------------------------------------------------------------
  | Michael Schneider      CEO, AboveNet Deutschland GmbH            |
  |                        CEO, World Switch GmbH                    |
  |                         MD, Schneider & Schollmeyer Law Firm     |
  |                   Director, European ISP Association (EuroISPA)  |
  |                     Member, Names Council of ICANN               |
  | Eschborner Landstrasse 112, D-60489 Frankfurt am Main            |
  | Phone: +49 69 975 44 0      Michael.Schneider@abovenet.de        |