[wg-c] RE: [wg-c-1] Next question: Which gTLDs? How many?

[Ivan Pope <ivan@netnames.com>]

Javier,
I think it would be very helpful if we actually had a working discussion on
this rather than trying to jump back to what, with the best will in the
world, will be considered a CORE/POC agenda and approach.
Lots of what you say below was contentious at the time and will remain
contentious. I really can't see the point of having a working group if input
is ignored and we default to a reflex position.

>Which? How Many?

> I personally think that it should be the community to choose. 

Do you mean that ICANN should choose all gTLDs itself? If so, we should look
at the mechanism by which names would be selected rather than attempt to
propose an arbitary set (with all the baggage your arbitary set carry).

> Otherwise all
> new gTLDs would only be oriented to "be sold" and not to serve the
> community. gTLDs such as ".arts" which may add much more 
> richness to the
> name space will not be added, because others may bring in more money.

This statement implies that we propose a limited number of gTLDs and then
let the force of commerce choose them. I'm sure we can be more sophisticated
than that.

> There is a proposal on the table for 7 new gTLDs. It was a 
> list that was
> reached after long public consultation.
> 
> .firm .info .web .arts .rec .nom .shop

I think this assertion is hugely contentious and I feel it just allows old
arguments to be reopened. Firstly, these are the POC/CORE set. Secondly,
they have been condemned often enough in the past as a bad choice. Thirdly,
I believe that CORE has applied for Trademark status on these.

> The number seven was a middle point reached between the
> technical/business/IP communities. A list short enough to be 
> easy to handle
> and long enough to add a new dimension to the name space.

YOu have jumped from agreement that 'more gTLDs' be added to a position that
we are here to propose a specific number. 

> The merits of having .sex or .xxx were discussed. The reasons 
> for having
> this gTLD seem to be related to classifying the contents of 
> website, and
> enforcing that other gTLDs do not have any sexual contents. 
> As this WG does
> not deal with other existing gTLDs, we could only propose that it be
> created, not that action be taken to move sexual contents out of other
> gTLDs. I don't see the merit of this independent action, and 
> therefore of
> having the .sex gTLD.
> 
> Does anybody have other proposals or see things that could be 
> changed on
> this one?

I absolutely reject the notion that this gets us anywhere near an agreement
or even a working proposal. This is just rehashing the CORE/POC position and
I find it sad that we cannot even be creative enough as a WG to sit back and
examine the issues and what we are trying to achieve without falling back on
a proposal that has not been supported widely in the past and should not be
proposed by the co-chair of this WG.

Further, what is the status of our co-chair?

Ivan