Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- new reminder

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Summary:
Q2: Option 5
Q3: Option 4
Q4: Option 3

> 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).

This is a recipe for interiminable delays and an effective halt tothe addition
of new TLDs. ICANN is not "the Internet community"
it is a small collection of special interests. Putting the DNSO
in charge of the addition of every new TLD individually means
that the control freaks and the people who want to stifle
new competition and new ideas will gravitate to the process.

>         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.

Options 4 and 5 are not entirely mutually exclusive, but I preferOption 5. I
especially support the notion of reserving slots for
non-English cultural groups.

> 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.

I cannot understand why anyone would support this option.Even if they believe
that non-profit, cost-recovery registries are
best, as long as they can select that option why should they insist
that no other option be allowed?

>         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.

I support this option.

> QUESTION FOUR:  SHOULD ICANN REQUIRE SHARING?
>
>         Option 1: All gTLDs would be shared (that is, open to competitive
> registrars).

Same comment as above. ICANN should not be in the business of dictatingbusiness
models. Consumers should have a choice of models, as should suppliers.
We do not know, long-term, which one will work best or what direction
industry evolution will take.

>         Option 3:  ICANN would not require registries to support
> competitive registrars in any of their gTLDs, although registries might
> independently choose to do so.

 This is the best option.

--
m i l t o n   m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
syracuse university          http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/