RE: [wg-c] Straw Vote

["Cohen, Tod" <Tod_Cohen@mpaa.org>]

I agree with Marilyn's points.  A quick assessment should be sufficient for
Santiago.

Tod Cohen

		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:mcade@att.com]
		Sent:	Friday, August 13, 1999 9:43 AM
		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
		--------------------