Re: [wg-c] Straw Vote

[dwmaher@ibm.net]

At 04:52 PM 8/12/99 -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>
>QUESTION ONE: HOW MANY NEW gTLDS, AND HOW FAST?
>
>Option 1:	Without regard to whether it would be desirable to have many
>gTLDs in the long term, ICANN should proceed now by adding only a few, and
>then pausing for evaluation.  Only after assessing the results should it
>initiate any action to add more.
DWM: I agree with this.
>Option 2:	ICANN should implement a plan contemplating the authorization of
>many new gTLDs over the next few years.  (Example: ICANN might plan to
>authorize up to 10-12 new registries, each operating 1-3 new gTLDs, each
>year, for a period of five years; each year's authorizations would be
>staggered over the course of the year.)  This option would place the burden
>on opponents, if evidence comes in demonstrating that additional new gTLDs
>are a bad idea or that the rollout is too fast, to bring that evidence to
>ICANN's attention and call for a halt or a slowdown.
DWM: I agree with this.
>
>QUESTION TWO: HOW TO SELECT TLD STRINGS AND REGISTRIES?
>
>	Option 1:  ICANN should decide on a set of new gTLD strings, and then
>solicit applications from would-be registries (or existing registries) to
>run those TLDs.  In picking the new gTLD strings, it should use an ad hoc
>approach to choose the new gTLDs that it thinks will best serve the
>Internet community.  Each proponent of a new gTLD would apply to the NC for
>formation of a WG devoted to that gTLD string (or to several strings).  The
>WG would then generate a charter for each proposed new TLD, and it would be
>up to the NC and ICANN to approve the WG's product.  This process would
>likely generate some broad-based TLDs along with some more narrowly focused
>ones (which might have restrictive registration policies).

>	Option 2: Same as Option One, except that a standing WG would make
>periodic proposals for new gTLDs.
>
>	Option 3:  ICANN should decide on a set of new gTLD strings, and then
>solicit applications from would-be registries (or existing registries) to
>run those TLDs.  Before picking the new gTLD strings, it should agree on a
>predetermined structure for the namespace (such as a Yellow Pages-type
>taxonomy).  All new gTLDs, under this approach, would be limited-purpose.
>This approach would be responsive to Dennis Jennings' concern that "the set
>of gTLDs that are active must, to be successful, be clearly understood by
>the vast majority of Internet  users (in English) to point to clearly
>defined and (ideally) non-overlapping sub-sets of the possible Internet
>hosts."
>
>	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.
>
>	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.
>
DWM: I vote for OPTION 1

>QUESTION THREE: SHOULD REGISTRIES BE FOR-PROFIT OR NON-PROFIT?  HOW MANY
>gTLDS SHOULD THEY RUN?
>
>	Option 1: All registries would be run on a not-for-profit, cost-recovery
>basis.  (The "registry operator," in the sense that Emergent was the
>operator of the planned CORE registry, could be a for-profit company.)
>Registries could operate any number of gTLDs.
>
>	Option 2:  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 one gTLD each.
>
>	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).
>
>	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.
>
DWM: I vote for OPTION 1. I recognize, however, that, over time,
circumstances - usage of the Internet, acceptance of new gTLDs, etc. - will
change, and there may come a time when for-protfit registries could be
accepted.

>QUESTION FOUR:  SHOULD ICANN REQUIRE SHARING?
>
>	Option 1: All gTLDs would be shared (that is, open to competitive
>registrars).
>
>	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.)
>
>	Option 3:  ICANN would not require registries to support competitive
>registrars in any of their gTLDs, although registries might independently
>choose to do so.
DWM: I vote for Option 1, subject to the same comments as above - changing
circumstances may dictate other approaches in the future.