[council] Re: WG C Final report and principles

[Javier SOLA <jsola@aui.es>]

Philip,

I must say that I am surprised to see this. I was not aware of any 
communication to the NC from John Weinberg in this sense. The date of this 
e-mail is one month after WG-C officially finished its work and submitted 
its official report.

Javier

At 16:43 22/05/00 +0200, you wrote:
>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
>