Re: [wg-c] There is no "consensus"

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 11:41:50PM -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
> Javier wrote:
> 
>> The answer to the first question seems to be clear: Yes, there should be new
>> gTLDs.
> 
> I'm afraid that it is not clear at all. It is *very* clear that there is not
> even a consensus on what we mean by "new gTLDs."

OK.  I proposed some definitions, and I believe Javier was using them:

  TLD: One of the entries in the IANA-approved root zone.

  gTLD: a TLD that has no enforced criteria for the entities that may
  register in it.

Those definitions say nothing at all about the process for getting 
them in the root; or about the registries or registry operators 
involved; or business models; or numbers.

If you disagree with this definition please explain why -- I went to 
some effort to express the common, dry understanding of the terms.

Given this definition, I believe Javier's statement is correct.  
Given this definition, do you disagree with Javier's statement?  If 
so, why?


>To some commentors, "new gTLDs" means selecting a small list of names and
>letting ICANN's Board find someone to operate them, according to whatever
>business model it chooses.

It doesn't mean that to me, and I'm relatively confident it doesn't
mean that to *anybody*.  To me, and I believe to most people, new gTLDs
just means new gTLDs -- no implications about lists, numbers, mode of
operation, business model, or ICANN's method of chosing, or anything 
like that.

>To others, "new gTLDs" means authorizing a process by which organizations can
>apply for the ability to run a gTLD that is placed in the root. Such a model
>implies no fixed number of TLDs, and therefore the "second question" is
>entirely inappropriate.

This is indeed a novel meaning for the term "new gTLD", and I have 
never seen the term so overloaded before.

>There are other positions that have been stated or implied as to what exactly
>"new gTLDs" means.

I have not seen any.  Nobody but me has posted any definitions at
all.  It strikes me that you are simply using the term in a bizarre
way for rhetorical purposes.

>These differences need to be defined and discussed more systematically.

Of course.  Agreeing that there should be new gTLDs does not 
preclude such discussion.

>It is also clear that the trademark people are not in favor of new TLDs until
>and unless their concerns about dispute resolution are addressed.

Yes, I agree.  I would hopefully restate their position as "we don't 
mind new gTLDs if our concerns are addressed", and see if they will 
agree to that restatement.

[...]

>To me, the concept of a "working group" and "achieving consensus" means just
>that: we *work* at developing proposals and exploring ways to achieve
>agreements among parties who bring different views to the table. We don't just
>dismiss views we disagree with and hope that they'll be outvoted.

Right.  We start small, by finding small agreements, and trying to 
build on them.  Like getting everyone to agree, or at least not 
object too much, that there should be new gTLDs at all.  Just as 
Javier has done.

>To date, there has been exactly ONE proposal to this list that shows an
>appreciation of the fact that there are contending positions, and which
>attempts to define some method for resolving the points of contention: Craig
>Simon's compromise proposal. Oddly, almost no one besides myself has bothered
>to comment on it.

It is premature to discuss proposals.  I put out a proposal, 
too, and I am not concerned that there has not been much discussion 
about it.  I am content for the time being to try to get all the 
positions clearly explained in as non-confrontational manner as 
possible -- there are many people in this group who *don't* know the 
"pre-ordained" positions or the thinking that leads to them.

Craig's proposal is interesting, and there are some possibilities in
it.  I'm not prepared to discuss it, though, until at least people
understand the meaning of "new gTLD" that I have been using :-)

So let's review the definitions I gave:

  database: (abstract) a formally structured collection of data;
  (concrete) a system of computer software/hardware that implements a
  database. 

  TLD: One of the entries in the IANA-approved root zone. 

  gTLD: a TLD that has no enforced criteria for the entities that may
  register in it.

  Registry: a database associating DNS information with some person,
  legal entity, operational entity, or other referrent.  Note that we
  can speak of a registry in the abstract or in the concrete, as per
  the definition of "database" above.  To emphasize the abstract
  meaning we may use the terms "registry database", or possibly
  "registry data". 

  gTLD registry: a registry for a particular gTLD ("the .com
  registry"). 

  Registry operator: the organization or business that operates a
  registry.  This distinction is very important: NSI is the operator
  of the .com registry; Emergent was the operator of the prototype
  CORE registry. 

  Registry administrator: registry operator. 

  Registrar: an entity with a direct contractual relationship with,
  and special access to, a registry, that inserts records on behalf
  of others. 

  Registration agent: Registrar

  Shared Registry: a registry that allows access from multiple
  distinct registrars. 

These are my understanding of the common meanings of these terms, 
tightened up a little.

In light of the discussion that has gone on previously, I would like 
to modify the definition of "registry administrator", though.  I 
will send a separate message to that effect.

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