[wg-c] Eureka?

["Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>]

I accuse myself of the sin of failing to parse the issues 
and thereby engaging in fuzzy thinking.  Gomen nasai :-)

There is a difference between the end stage steady 
state of the DNS and the trip through the desert to 
get there.

I don't think there are any responsible people who deny 
that in the end stage steady state, there should be LOTS 
of gTLDs.  As many gTLDs as there are viable registries 
for them.  If technology still imposes an upper limit on the 
number of TLDs in the root, then we'll have to devise a 
mechanism for allocating the domains.  It will also be 
important to develop a method for policing the root to cut 
out the dead domains, as well as some method for forcible 
transfer of custody of the registry function for a TLD if (for 
example) the registry operator goes bankrupt and 
abandons LARGENUM of paying customers.  (This last 
criterion will improve user confidence in the stability of the 
DNS.)  In that steady state, there will be no dictation by 
ICANN of the business model and policies of the registry 
beyond those dictated by the trademark protection and 
dispute resolution policies.

The reasons for this conclusion are legion and don't need 
to be rehashed here.  That can be done by a drafting subcommittee.

The trick is how to get from where we are now to where 
we wish to be, without getting derailed in the process.  This means
that the process has to start under a yellow flag.  We will also
need to estalish the mechanism for red- and/or green-flagging
the addition of additional TLDs.

(A)  The process has to be open, transparent, and responsive 
to the wishes of the entire Internet Community.  
This is OUR responsibility.

(B)  We will need to decide whether this WG will propose a 
list of gTLDs, a mechanism for introducing gTLDs, or a 
combination of both.  I think we should do both:  propose a 
list and a schedule sufficient to cover the first calendar 
year (+/-) of operation and a method (other than this blessed 
workgroup fussfest method) for introducing new domains.

(C)  The introduction of new gTLDs will need to be coordinated 
with other policy decisions being taken by ICANN, particularly 
with respect to the protection of famous trademarks and the 
development of fair and economical techniques of dispute resolution.

(D)  The transition process needs to moderate the impact of creating 
new monopolies so as to prevent those entities which are favored 
during the rollout phase with a period during which monopoly profits 
will accrue to registry operators.

(E)  The transition policy needs to recognize the special status of 
Network Solutions, in order (among other things) to prevent NSI 
and its affiliates from engaging in predatory practices.

Okay, I think that's enough to convey my thinking and enable
progress by picking my ideas into sawdust.

KJC

:include <yada yada>

**********************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
**********************************************************************