Re: [wg-c] WG questions

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Wed, Jul 14, 1999 at 04:24:33PM +0100, Ivan Pope wrote:
> These are the questions the WG is here to answer with my veiw on how to go
> about answering them:

Big message...I can only handle a bit at a time :-)
[...]
> 
> Should there be new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs)? 
> - I don't think we should answer this with a yes or a no.

We don't answer with a "yes or no", but OTOH, I really think the 
sense of the group is clear, and we ought to report that.  Todd's 
response was a conditioned one, but every other mention has been 
affirmative. 

> We should define
> how new gTLDs should be defined and developed and that mechanism will itself
> answer this question for us by either creating or not creating new gTLDs.

I agree we should propose a process.  However, this WG does have a 
slightly stronger charter, and I think that to the extent we are able 
we should try to meet that stronger charter.  My same caveat applies 
to several of your comments...
[...]
> 
> What should be the mechanism for developing new gTLDs after all these are
> deployed?
> - Aha, this is the 64,000 dollar question. Though I would hope that we can
> define a mechanism that will deploy all gTLDs from the beginning, not just
> the 'next set'. There is no presumption that there is any first set of
> gTLDs.

May I suggest that the mechanism, at least in embryonic rough
outline, is before our eyes, and that we are participating in it? To
be more explicit, here is my viewof the process:

1.  Someone is motivated to have a new TLD, or perhaps a set of 
TLDs.  For example, Todd Cohen could propose a set of TLDs to mimic 
TM classifications.

2.  That entity proposes a WG on the subject to the NC, following 
roughly the IETF procedures.  Under normal circumstances, given that 
the proper homework has been done, the WG charter is reasonable, 
that there appears sufficient interest, etc etc, the WG is approved, 
and goes off to try to work.  As with any WG, participation is open 
to anyone.

3.  The positive outcome of the WG would be a policy document 
specifying the TLDs in question, defining any special conditions or 
TLD charters, describing special restrictions that may exist on 
registries or registrars, and so on.  A negative outcome would be a 
failure to produce such a document.

4.  The document would then go to the NC for review and possible
iteration. 

5.  Upon final approval by the NC, the policy on the specific new
TLDs would be passed on to the ICANN board. 

I deliberately did not say "gTLD" in the above description.  I 
expect that the same process could be used for chartered TLDs, or 
other special purpose TLDs.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain