RE: [wg-c] straw poll -- reminder

["Chicoine, Caroline" <chicoinc@PeperMartin.com>]

Question One "Vote"

I "vote" for neither or for option 1 PROVIDED no action should be taken
to add gTLDs until the following have been put into place:(1) a
universal, reliable and searchable database of contact information for
all domain name registrants;(2) a workable uniform dispute resolution
procedure; and (3) a famous name policy (as articulated by Rita Odin).

To begin with, I would like to address the individual that questioned
those of us that have not yet sent an email to the list as inactive. I
joined WGC in mid-stream and have just had a chance to read through the
hundreds of emails posted to this list (many of which I later found to
be noise) which I felt was my duty in order to make an informed "vote".
When this "vote" was posted, I immediately forwarded Question One to the
Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC)(for which I am one of the
interim Names Council representatives) in an effort to reach out and
help make this a consensus building process.  The majority of the
current IPC members that responded agreed with this "vote", with two
dissents (one from a non-IPC member).  

While people have characterized the above position as a delay tactic,
after reading many of the comments on the list, it appears that there
are several outstanding issues as to exactly how to implement the
addition of any new gTLDs. According to one of the posts, this issue has
been tossed around for approximately five years which I believe is in
part reflective of how contentious an issue it is. However, I also am
not proposing that our discussions and efforts to try to resolve these
issues stop until the three above-mentioned provisions have been met,
but rather they should be continued simultaneously.  In particular, I
point to William Walsh's suggestion in his August 10th email (Proposal
Writing) that a subgroup look into a proposal that can be used as a
starting point for defining the contractual relationship between the
Registeries and ICANN to address some of the issues presented. Now that
I am up to speed, I would like to participate in such an endeavour.

Finally, to those that continue to argue as to the unimportance of the
value or significance of a TLD (and in this case the .com gTLD), please
find below an excerpt from NewsScan Daily (August 17, 1999):

THE DOT COM EFFECT
A Purdue University study, titled "A Rose.com by Any Other Name," says
that
companies can boost sagging stock prices significantly just by adding a
".com" extension to their name.  The report, which surveyed 52 companies
that had changed their names between June 1998 and March 1999, indicates
that the firms' stock prices rose 125% in the time period five days
before
the switch to five days after.  "The returns from it are so large that
it
does make you stop and scratch your head a little bit," says co-author
Michael Cooper, an assistant professor at Purdue's Krannert School of
Management.  The average volume traded for the period soared from 14,124
shares to 66,500.  The most striking effect was evident in non-Internet
companies that said they were shifting their focus to the Web.  Their
stock
prices rose 189% in the 30 days surrounding the name change.
(Reuters/San
Jose Mercury News 17 Aug 99)  
http://www.sjmercury.com/svtech/news/breaking/internet/docs/7611811.htm


Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:weinberg@mail.msen.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 9:49 PM
To: wg-c@dnso.org
Subject: [wg-c] straw poll -- reminder


	I'm away from home, and as a result not as well-organized as I'd
like to be.  Near as I can tell, the following 24 WG members who have
posted to the list at least once[*] haven't submitted votes in the straw
poll:  Dennis Jennings, Kilnam Chon, Daiva Tamulioniene, Eva Frolich,
Amadeu Abril i Abril, Ivan Pope, Werner Staub, Ross Wm. Rader, Javier
Sola, John Lewis, Tolga Yurderi, Petter Rindforth, Martin B. Schwimmer,
Craig Simon, Jeffrey Neuman, Onno Hovers, Keith Gymer, Jim Glanz, Rob
Hall, Raul Echeberria, Caroline Chicoine, Robert F. Connelly, Anthony
Lupo, Kathryn Kleiman.

	To the extent that any of you *have* voted (but I lost those
files
en route to my mother-in-law's house), please let me know.  For those of
you who haven't voted, I urge you please to do so now.  You need only
send
in an answer to Question One at this point.  For your convenience, I'm
reprinting Question One below.


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.

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.


-------------------------------

[*] I figure that anybody who hasn't posted to the list even once has
probably decided that his or her energies are best expended elsewhere.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, WG-C
weinberg@msen.com