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

[Javier SOLA <javier@aui.es>]

Ivan

At 10:32 16/07/99 +0100, Ivan Pope wrote:
>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.


Nobody has objected to you leading a discussion in the direction that you
want, why do you object to others leading other discussions?

Asking the question that agree with the model you want does not mean that
others cannot work in other directions, which are probably more open and
further in agreement with the desires of the community, not only of those
who see the DNS as a business.

>>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).

I mean that the DNSO should be the one to propose a set to ICANN. The role
of the DNSO is to figure out community consensus. I do trust the limited
part of the community that is in the DNSO more that I would trust an
enterpreneur who is working only for himself.

>> 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.

I do not believe that the "force of commerce"should be involved in the
central managment of scarce resources. That is called a monopoly, and it
would have problems operating in places such as the European Union. 

>> 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 have never seen any one complaining about this list. Do you have any
information that you could send to the list? Do you have a better set?

>I believe that CORE has applied for Trademark status on these.

I don't know anything about this, and I believe that if it true, the TMs
would be impossible to enforce. Trade-marks are national and the Internet
is global. Same with Ambler's claim to .web.

I agree with Kent that anybody who applies to be a registry (a part of the
application,a s a matter of fact) should give up any claims on any names of
gTLDs selected to be added to the root (present or future).

>> 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. 

It is in our charter to answer that question.

>> Does anybody have other proposals or see things that could be 
>> changed on
>> this one?

I insist. Any other proposals? I keep hearing that there are others, but
they have been presented.

>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.

Ivan, once again, you "absolutely reject" that other people will work in
lines that do not follow your personal agenda, in spite of the fact that
these questions fit the charter of the working group.

I find hard to accept that somebody will absolutely forbid this WG to meet
its charter.

Again, I still have not seen one single line of critisim (of substance) to
the proposal above, you have just claimed that there is critisim. Could you
please tell us what it is?

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

It has to be chosen by the WG.

I nominate for co-chair Christopher Ambler, Milton Muller and Ivan Pope, if
they accept the nomination.

I believe we have also received a nomination for Kent Crispin and a
self-nomination from Langston.

Javier