Re: [wg-c] Straw Vote

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

QUESTION ONE: HOW MANY NEW gTLDS, AND HOW FAST?

- - - - ->>>Neither.

ICANN should implement a plan contemplating the entry of an indefinite number 
of TLDs into the root, without any commitment in advance as to the pace at which 
those TLDs will be added.  This is intended as a hybrid of both approaches, but 
rejecting both the idea that, under option #1, just a few domains are presently 
contemplated, and sometime after the millennium we might think about adding more 
domains, and, under option #2, that affirmative action must be taken by ICANN 
to stop the music.  

Instead:  Each TLD added to the root should be explicitly authorized by ICANN 
at the time of entry; and a mechanism adopted making the process for proposing 
and securing approval of additional names less painful than this WG process.  
This means that ICANN should adopt a policy establishing the criteria which must 
be met by the proposed registry operation, and stating in general its policy regarding 
the introduction of new domains, but without adopting any rigid decision at this time 
as to the extent of new domain s and/or the pace of their introduction.


QUESTION TWO: HOW TO SELECT TLD STRINGS AND REGISTRIES?

None, really, but  . . .

	Option 5:  

is closer than the others.

These considerations really apply only to the initial roll-out phase (during which
control of any gTLD confers significant market power).  As long as registries
are required to operate solely on a cost recovery basis, there's no big advantage
in being a registry.

QUESTION THREE: SHOULD REGISTRIES BE FOR-PROFIT OR NON-PROFIT?  HOW MANY
gTLDS SHOULD THEY RUN?


- - - ->>>	Option 3:  Some registries would be run on a not-for-profit, cost-recovery
basis, and could operate any number of gTLDs..  Other registries, however,
could be run on a for-profit basis, and would be limited to a small number
of gTLDs (say, three).

with the added caveat that registries rolled out during the first wave (i.e., so long as the
possession of dominion over ANY gTLD confers significant monopoly power) are
non-profit only.

QUESTION FOUR:  SHOULD ICANN REQUIRE SHARING?

- - - - ->>>	Option 1: All gTLDs would be shared (that is, open to competitive
registrars).

but only until the market conditions are such that possession of a gTLD does not
inherently confer significant market power.  Once there are enough gTLDs that
cross-elasticity between gTLDs removes the market power inherent in possession
of a gTLD, the market should be free and open, subject only to the following
qualifications:

(A)  Adequate provision for replacement service if the registry operator fails;
(B)  Adoption of approved protection for intellectual property rights; and
( C) Adoption of approved policies to prevent reverse hijacking of domains 
by economically-advantaged claimants.

**********************************************************************
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
**********************************************************************