[wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	Forty-four people submitted straw votes on Question One.  Here's
my summary of the results (and I apologize for the reductionism involved
in categorizing people's statements this way):

	The WG is split.  Exactly half of the voters (22 people) expressed
support for Option One, some with reservations or additional requirements.
Thirteen voters expressed support for Option Two.  Seven voters sent
messages that I have, for purposes of quick summary, lumped together as
"neither / both / in between / other", and two voters urged that the focus
on new gTLDs is misplaced since .us remains undeveloped.

	It seems plain to me that neither Option One nor Option Two,
standing alone, commands a consensus, and neither is likely to do so.
Under these circumstances, it seems to me, the WG has two choices:  The
first is to prepare a report stating that the WG was unable to formulate a
consensus answer to the "how many, how fast" question, and attaching
alternate recommendations drafted by the proponents of the various
positions.  The second choice is to find a compromise somewhere between
Options One and Two, and to agree on it as a consensus position.  Very few
of the WG members would agree with such a recommendation fully, but it may
be that enough would endorse it, for the sake of reaching a compromise
position, to give it the status of rough consensus.

	I think that we should explore such a compromise.  Rather than
floating one now, though, I want to move on to a call for votes on the
remaining three questions.  People who have already submitted votes on
these questions need not resubmit them; everybody else should please
submit votes by midnight EDT on Wednesday, August 27, under the subject
line "straw vote". As before, the sender should indicate whether he or she
is voting for one of the listed options, or for "none of the above."
Voters are free to include explanations of their votes and arguments for
their positions -- or they can just cast votes.  The only requirement is
that anybody voting for "none of the above" *must* explain what his or her
preferred policy position is.

	Thanks.

Jon

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

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.


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.


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.

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

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