RE: [wg-c] Straw Vote

[Jean-Michel Becar <Jean-Michel.Becar@etsi.fr>]

The idea it's just to see the current opinion from the people of this
working group. 
And hope we will be able to discuss more in the near future.

Jean-Michel Bécar
becar@etsi.fr
http://www.etsi.org
E.T.S.I. Project Manager
Tel	: +33 (0)4 92 94 43 15
Mobile  	: +33 (0)6 82 80 19 31
Fax      	: +33 (0)4 92 38 52 15



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:mcade@att.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 1999 15:43
> To: 'rmeyer@mhsc.com'; Jonathan Weinberg; wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [wg-c] Straw Vote
> 
> 
> I don't believe that we are actually ready to start 
> "balloting" even as
> "straw polls"; we first need to assess whether we have 
> diverse and broad
> participation engaged in the dialogue about this sensitive 
> and critical set
> of issues.  Let's take a quick assessment, pre-Santiego, on how
> representative this effort is. 
> 
> Regards, Marilyn
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland M.J. Meyer [mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 1999 8:10 AM
> To: Jonathan Weinberg; wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [wg-c] Straw Vote
> 
> 
> > Jonathan Weinberg
> > Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 1:53 PM
> > To: wg-c@dnso.org
> >
> 
> > Javier hasn't
> > seen this final version, though, and if you don't like it, 
> you should
> > complain to me, not him.)
> >
> > 	I'd like us to start taking straw votes on these
> > questions.  I don't mean
> 
> > 	So as a beginning, list members should cast votes on
> > Question One.  You
> 
> > explain what his or her preferred policy choice is.  Voting
> > should close at
> > midnight EDT on August 18.  (I don't think we really need
> > that long, and I
> > expect it'll make sense to take less time for the remaining
> > questions, but
> > I figure it's better to err on the side of inclusiveness the
> > first time out.)
> 
> > Jon Weinberg
> > co-chair, WG-C
> > weinberg@msen.com
> 
> Yes, it NEEDS to take that long. Some of use have day-jobs and these
> issues are not trivial.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ------------------------------
> 
> > QUESTION ONE: HOW MANY NEW gTLDS, AND HOW FAST?
> 
> Neither. ICANN should authorize TLD registries as they become 
> available
> and meet operational criteria. They should become operational with no
> more than one TLD until they have proven operational and business
> viability/survivability, for one year. Only if they are still solvent,
> after that time, should they be allowed additional TLDs. 
> Note: this may
> actually be more stringent than the proposed options.
> 
> > QUESTION TWO: HOW TO SELECT TLD STRINGS AND REGISTRIES?
> 
> Option x:  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. Alternatively, prove that the choice of
> TLD is adequately defensible, in a court of competent 
> jurisdiction (ie.
> TM used as TLD).
> 
> > QUESTION THREE: SHOULD REGISTRIES BE FOR-PROFIT OR
> > NON-PROFIT?  HOW MANY
> > gTLDS SHOULD THEY RUN?
> 
> Option x:  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,
> subject to viability testing.
> 
> > QUESTION FOUR:  SHOULD ICANN REQUIRE SHARING?
> >
> > 	Option 3:  ICANN would not require registries to
> > support competitive registrars in any of their gTLDs, although
> registries might
> > independently choose to do so.
> 
> --------------------
> Roeland M.J. Meyer, CEO
> Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
> http://www.mhsc.com/
> mailto://rmeyer@mhsc.com
> --------------------
>