RE: [council] Conclusions of gTLDs committee 6 Feb 2003
Title: Message Philip:
You
are confusing two questions. The underlying question that must be answered
is "what did the board mean by their use of the word 'structure'"? Having
determined that, I agree wholeheartedly that the Names Council has full
authority to
As I
indicated on the last call, I believe that the Board has asked quite a narrow
question of us. I think there was some agreement on the call that the
board meant "structure" in the context of Stuart's paper on gTLD
expansion. Here, then, is the relevant excerpt:
---------------------------------------
Since well before ICANN's new TLD process in 2000, there has been discussion about the best way to address the semantic element of new TLD creation. Some have argued that the best approach is to allow each would-be TLD registry operator to select which new TLD string(s) it wishes to operate (on the basis of its own analysis, market research and/or reference to the intended community to be served), with little or no editorial role for ICANN in selecting new TLD proposals. This is the approach ICANN took in 2000: each proposer was asked to specify the TLD string(s) it wanted, including an explanation of its rationale and, for sponsored TLD proposals, the relationship of the string to the intended community to be served and to any restrictions or limitations on registration. Others have argued that the ICANN community should undertake to "rationalize" the new TLD space according to a defined taxonomy of names. This is the approach that was taken when the Domain Name System was first designed and deployed in the mid-1980s. [See RFC 1034, RFC 1035, RFC 1591]. RFC 1591 documented post-hoc the initial taxonomy decisions, which established seven three-letter "generic" top-level domains (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT) and an expandable number of "country-code" top-level domains, drawn from the ISO 3166-1 table. In other words, the initial architects of the DNS made a collective judgment about the best taxonomic structure for the DNS, which the IANA then implemented by identifying registry operators for each generic and country-code TLD and delegating registry authority, according to the policies documented in RFC 1591. There are any number of pros and cons to each of these approaches:
Paragraph II.C 8 of the Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and the United States Department of Commerce signed in September, 2002 states that ICANN should "Continue the process of implementing new top level domains (TLDs), which process shall include consideration and evaluation of . . . (b) The creation and implementation of selection criteria for new and existing TLD registries, including public explanation of the process, selection criteria, and the rationale for selection decisions." The need to understand how the top level TLD namespace should be expanded is indeed a prerequisite to defining such "selection criteria". Recommendation: As ICANN proceeds with its new TLD evaluation process – and, if the Board concurs, with an additional round of new sponsored TLDs – this basic question of taxonomic rationalization should be addressed within the ICANN process. Accordingly, it is my recommendation to the ICANN Board that the DNSO and its Names Council be requested to develop and submit its advice and guidance on the issue. -----------------
As you
can see, in this context, the question of structure is purely a taxonomic one,
essentially posing the question "should the list of available gTLD strings be
set in advance or established by new gTLD applicants" and is explicitly distinct
from selection criteria and process.
If we
are to diverge from this interpretation, I think the onus is to clearly
enunciate both the new definition of structure that we are using for the purpose
of our inquiry AND the reasons why we are diverging from the interpretation laid
out above.
Jordyn
-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be] Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 10:40 AM To: Council (list); Denise Michel Subject: [council] Conclusions of gTLDs committee 6 Feb 2003
|