Re: [wg-c] Straw Vote

["A.M. Rutkowski" <amr@netmagic.com>]

At 04:52 PM 8/12/99 , you wrote:

I would answer these in the following fashion, but not
necessarily within an ambit of an ICANN regime.


 >QUESTION ONE: HOW MANY NEW gTLDS, AND HOW FAST?
 >
 >Option 2:	ICANN should implement a plan contemplating the authorization of
 >many new gTLDs over the next few years.  (Example: ICANN might plan to


 >QUESTION TWO: HOW TO SELECT TLD STRINGS AND REGISTRIES?
 >
 >	Option 4:  ICANN should start by adding the existing "alternate" gTLDs,
 >and then find a neutral method to continue adding new TLD strings, focusing
 >on names that have already been proposed.

plus

 >	Option 5:  ICANN should pick a set of registries, according to
 >predetermined, objective criteria.  The registries would then choose their
 >own gTLD strings, subject to some process or rules under which ICANN could
 >resolve conflicts, and could deem certain gTLD strings out of bounds.  This
 >approach would incorporate a mechanism under which existing registries
 >could apply for authorization to add additional gTLD strings.  The
 >registry-selection criteria might reserve a certain number of slots for
 >registries based in each region of the world.


 >QUESTION THREE: SHOULD REGISTRIES BE FOR-PROFIT OR NON-PROFIT?  HOW MANY
 >gTLDS SHOULD THEY RUN?
 >
 >	Option 4:  Some registries would be run on a not-for-profit, cost-recovery
 >basis.  Other registries, however, could be run on a for-profit basis.  Any
 >registry could operate any number of gTLDs.

plus limit the number of gTLDs per registry.  I argue that it
would be unlawfully discriminatory to differentiate between
for profit and not for profit businesses.


 >QUESTION FOUR:  SHOULD ICANN REQUIRE SHARING?
 >
 >	Option 2:  An ICANN rule would presumptively require that gTLDs be shared,
 >but ICANN would allow exceptions in particular cases.  (A single registry
 >might run both shared and non-shared gTLDs.)

The appropriate approach is probably Option 2, but with something
other than a presumptive test.  What that test is, is not apparent.


--tony