RE: [wg-c] RE: working group c meeting

[Ivan Pope <ivan@netnames.com>]

> > I am concerned that there is an attempt by POC/CORE to 'capture'
> >the new gTLD process. If the Chair (Javier, who we all know 
> has been very
> >bound up with this since the beginning) is proposing what 
> amounts to the
> >POC/CORE gTLD set as the WG's proposals, then it is very pertinent to
> >examine whether there are Trademark issues. 

> I am not only the chair, I am also a member of this working 
> group with the
> same rights that you have to state my opinion. 
> 
> Why don't just state what you think and stop accusing others 
> of "capture"
> when they disagree with you?
> 
> About the 7 gTLDs, I have already said that I will no agree 
> or propose any
> gTLDs that may give anybody any rights over any part of the 
> domain system.
> I am also waiting for CORE to answer the question.
> 
Javier,
I am only answering someone else's comments. Of course you have the right to
say what you want. But I believe that it is politically disasterous to
propose the exact POC/CORE set of gTLDs without even discussing what the
criteria for selection might be or discussing the wider framework. It just
looks like a reflex to default to the old agenda.
Of course, this may not be at all what you intend, but seeing as we have
failed several times already it seems really sad to go back down the same
tired old route.
I mean, why don't we actually think about some criteria that may come up
with names rather than just propose an arbitary set? 
How about we propose that ICANN build a proposal and voting system for new
gTLDs. That we try and guage a worldwide demand for gTLDs? That we set out
some criteria that are consistent with the ICANN principles of geographic
diversity? To say, well, we're only here to suggest some starter gTLDs is
hardly very responsible.
When you say let's go for .rec? .arts? .nom? I say yuk, yuk, yuk. When you
say lets go for the tired old seven, I say where does that get us? It sounds
like you are so desperate to get some names into the root that you don't
want to think about the structure or the procedure. So all we are going to
do is end up with no fresh thinking or proposals.
I can just imagine it:
GA or DNSO or ICANN Board or wherever it is these things end up. Javier gets
up and says: 'The WG for gTLDs proposes that we introduce seven gTLDs, that
they are the exact same set that POC/CORE proposed a few years ago and that
we issue a call for Tender for a Registry or Registries to run them', what
do you think the response will be? That it sounds like a shoo-in for CORE to
apply to be that Registry to run the gTLDs that CORE just happened to have
applied for Trademarks on. And what sort of furious fight do you think would
break out at that point?
If the proposal is that 'ICANN set up a neutral body to administer the
criteria for the selection of new gTLDs and the selection of Registry
candidates as set out below' followed by a brilliant examination of what we
think would be a fair and open way of taking this thing forward. 
I think it is about time that we shake off the way of doing things where
proposals arrive out of the mist. In the way that the POC/CORE gTLD set did.
And I think its about time we dropped the pretense that CORE is anything but
a commercial operator among many commercial operators - no better and no
worse than most.
If you can't see how your role as Chair calls for some neutrality and
guidance rather than setting the agenda, then I think we have a problem.
Ivan