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

["Keith Gymer" <keith.gymer@btinternet.com>]

For the reasons given in my previous email on the original straw vote
reminder, I do not believe that the number of votes cast can possibly be
used to draw the conclusions about consensus which Jonathan is attempting.

At most, subject to confirmation of the constituency with which each voter
is asssociated, then the number of votes broken down by constituency may
provide an indication of which options are most likely favoured by the
constituencies so represented.  That might be useful nonetheless.
I haven't gone back to check the votes and best-guess the constituency
association of each voter but I wouldn't be surprised to find, for example,
that IP and Business reps will have voted for option 1, and would-be
registry operators and the libertarian tendency for option 2.

Keith

----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>
To: <wg-c@dnso.org>
Sent: 19 August 1999 12:25
Subject: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on
remaining questions


> 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
>
>
>
>