[wg-c] straw vote -- reminder

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

	I just want to remind people, after the excitement of Santiago, that the
deadline for submitting views on questions two through four of the straw
poll is midnight EDT on Wednesday.  The folks who voted on question one (or
explained what they would say if they were voting), but haven't yet voted
on the remaining questions, include Mark Langston, Jean-Michel Becar, Roger
Cochetti, Rita Odin, Marilyn Cade, Tod Cohen, Paul Stahura, Elisabeth
Porteneuve, Bill Semich, Dave Crocker, Richard Lindsay, Ken Stubbs, William
Walsh, Kilnam Chon, Ross Wm. Rader, Mark Measday, Robert F. Connolly, Hal
Lubsen, Ann-Catherine Andersson, Javier Sola, Martin Schwimmer, Kathryn
Klieman, Petter Rindforth, John Lewis, and Caroline Chicoine.  (I haven't
listed the names of WG members who *didn't* vote on Question One, but I
urge them to participate as well.)

	Michael Schneider, on Thursday, mentioned that the timeframe for Question
One was quite short, given the difficulties of consulting with his
constituency.  I apologize if I was insufficiently sensitive to this issue
at the time.  By Wednesday, though, the straw vote questions will have been
available for almost three weeks, and the voting period on Questions Two
through Four will have lasted for two weeks.  Also, people who were at
Santiago were able to talk about these issues within their constituencies
there.  So I'm hopeful that everyone will be able to post an expression of
views by Wednesday.

	Thanks.

Jon


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

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

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.