[council] WG C Final report and principles

["Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>]

Javier, you made a posting suggesting that a set of principles had not been
agreed by WG C. You are mistaken. Please see below.
Philip

-----Original Message-----
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>
To: council@dnso.org <council@dnso.org>
Cc: weinberg@mail.msen.com <weinberg@mail.msen.com>
Date: 18 April 2000 07:52
Subject: [council] From Jonathan Weinberg, two additional items and vote
tallies



>From Jonathan Weinberg, two additional items and vote tallies:

------------------------------------------------

To the Names Council:

Working Group C has achieved rough consensus on two additional items.

The first additional consensus point reads: "The initial rollout should
include a range of top level domains, from open TLDs to restricted TLDs
with more limited scope."

The vote tally on the first item was 50 YES, 18 NO.  The NO voters
included both persons urging that the initial rollout should include *only*
open gTLDs (such as Crocker, Broomfield, McCarthy, Teernstra, Wesson,
Dalgleish), and persons skeptical of open gTLDs (such as Sheppard, Gymer,
Schwimmer).

The second additional consensus point reads: "Criteria for assessing a
gTLD application, subject to current technical constraints and evolving
technical opportunities, should be based on all of the following principles:

1. Meaning: An application for a TLD should explain the significance of the
proposed TLD string, and how the applicant contemplates that the new TLD
will be perceived by the relevant population of net users.  The application
may contemplate that the proposed TLD string will have its primary semantic
meaning in a language other than English.

2. Enforcement: An application for a TLD should explain the mechanism for
charter enforcement where relevant and desired.

3. Differentiation: The selection of a TLD string should not confuse net
users, and so TLDs should be clearly differentiated by the string and/or by
the marketing and functionality associated with the string.

4. Diversity: New TLDs are important to meet the needs of an expanding
Internet community.  They should serve both commercial and non-commercial
goals.

5. Honesty: A TLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for
malicious or criminal elements who wish to defraud net users.

6. Competition: The authorization process for new TLDs should not be used
as a means of protecting existing service providers from competition."

The vote tally was 46 YES, 21 NO, 1 ABSTAIN.  The most common objection
among the NO voters was that the principles (while well-meant) were not
useful or meaningful, and were too vague and subjective to serve as
technical requirements.

A third proposed consensus item, "recommend[ing] that the Names Council
charter a working group to develop policy regarding internationalized
domain names using non-ASCII characters," came nowhere near achieving rough
consensus.  (The final tally was 19 YES, 33 NO, 17 ABSTAIN.)  The most
common criticism was that the technical specifications for
internationalized domain names, now under consideration by an IETF working
group, are still undeveloped, so any action to charter a DNSO working group
would be premature.

Vote tallies follow.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, WG-C
weinberg@msen.com

ITEM ONE

YES:  Fausett, Ambler, Lee, Brunner, Alvestrand, Love, Auerbach, Langston,
Mueller, Dixon, Denton, Linares, Walsh, Yap, Seng, Shrewsbury, Campbell,
Becar, Vienneau, Kamantauskas, Parker, Dawson, Feld, Elliott, Penman,
Greenwell, Higgs, Chon, Vestal, Simon, Schuckman, Renard, Winter, Kroon,
Schutt, Stubbs, Graehl, Connelly, Rindforth, Lubsen, Tan, Lupo, Echeberria,
Iriarte, Semich, A.-C. Andersson, Park, A. Andersson, Kang, Kozlowski

NO:  Crocker, Broomfield, Connolly, Rader, McCarthy, Kelsey, Sheppard,
Tamulione, Gymer, Joshi, Teernstra, Schwimmer, Cade, Wesson, Dalgleish,
Garvey, Porteneuve, Winer


ITEM TWO

YES:  Fausett, Ambler, Lee, Alvestrand, Love, Broomfield, Mueller, Dixon,
Linares, Walsh, Winer, Yap, Seng, Sheppard, Shrewsbury, Campbell, Becar,
Tamulione, Vinneau, Parker, Dawson, Feld, Gymer, Penman, Joshi, Chon,
Vestal, Schuckman, Renard, Winter, Kroon, Stubbs, Connelly, Rindforth,
Lubsen, Tan, Lupo, Dalgleish, Echeberria, Iriarte, A.-C. Andersson, Park,
A. Andersson, Kang, Kozlowski, Porteneuve

NO: Crocker, Brunner, Auerbach, Connolly, Langston, Denton, Rader,
McCarthy, Kelsey, Kamantauskas, Elliott, Greenwell, Simon, Teernstra,
Schutt, Schwimmer, Cade, Grahl, Wesson, Semich, Garvey.

ABSTAIN: Higgs


ITEM THREE

YES: Crocker, Lee, Love, Broomfield, Dixon, Denton, Linares, Winer, Yap,
Shrewsbury, Becar, Dawson, Penman, Stubbs, Connelly, Tan, Park, Kang,
Kozlowski

NO: Ambler, Brunner, Alvestrand, Auerbach, Connolly, Langston, Mueller,
Walsh, Rader, Kelsey, Sheppard, Campbell, Vienneau, Kamantauskas, Elliott,
Gymer, Greenwell, Joshi, Chon, Vestal, Simon, Schuckman, Teernstra, Renard,
Winter, Kroon, Cade, Wesson, Lubsen, Dalgleish, Semich, Porteneuve, Winer

ABSTAIN: Fausett, Seng, McCarthy, Tamulione, Parker, Feld, Higgs, Schutt,
Schwimmer, Graehl, Rindforth, Lupo, Echeberria, Iriarte, A.-C. Andersson,
A. Andersson, Garvey