Re: [wg-c] straw vote

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

FWIW, for those wedded to the (mis)perception (IMO;-) that counting numbers
of votes in this simplistic fashion has any value, I have appended my
"votes" below  as a representative from the wider business and IP community
together with some brief observations.
I note that although I made my position clear on the previous straw poll, I
have not previously voted on the second, despite Jonathan's omission of my
name from the list below.
Keith
----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>
To: <wg-c@dnso.org>
Sent: 23 August 1999 04:27
Subject: [wg-c] straw vote -- new reminder


> Fifteen people, so far, have submitted their views on questions two
> through four of the straw poll.  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,
> Milton Mueller, Joop Teernstra, 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,
> Craig Simon, Javier Sola, Martin Schwimmer, Kathryn Klieman, Petter
> Rindforth, John Lewis, and Caroline Chicoine.  Please submit votes by
> midnight EDT on Wednesday, August 27, under the subject line "straw vote".
>
> 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).

A structured approach, not an ad-hoc one is the only option if we are
concerned to avoid further chaos and confusiuon.

>         Option 2: Same as Option One, except that a standing WG would make
> periodic proposals for new gTLDs.

It should be for the Names Council to establish a W/G, though hopefully
itself with more structure and firmer direction than in this present w/g -
why "periodic"?   "systematic" would perhaps be preferable.  Why is this
alternative sub-option not provided for under Options 3, 4 and 5 below?
>
>         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."

This would certainly be my preferred option, so count my vote for this one,
provided that it ought to be a NC w/g (as proposed in option 2) that does
the proposiing to ICANN.  However, I do not necessarily believe that all new
gTLDs need *necessarily* be as strictly limited as this option suggests.  I
think there is room for more subtlety and differentiation, particularly
between commercially oriented and non-commercial TLDs.  However, lack of
subtlety is just one failing of this sort of straw poll of one person's
fixed selection of the alternatives as he sees them....
>
>         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.

Definitely Not - that will simply reproduce and multiply all the problems
with the existing gTLDs because of the lack of adequate structure and
differentiation.
>
>         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.

I think there is room for would-be registries to propose new gTLDs WITHIN
the confines of a suitable structure - this would help prioritise the
addition of new gTLDs where they may be most effective (but also may simply
prioritise them according to where a for-profit registry may most likely
make the fastest buck - the two may coincide, but cynicism suggests that is
unlikely, which predisposes me in favour of non-profit registries in general
>
>
> 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 believe that the IAHC and gTLD-MoU conclusion that registries should be
non-profit was essentially correct, so count my vote for this option.
However, again, I would not necessarily exclude the possibility of
for-profit registries for special cases, but the case would need to be more
convincing than any I've seen on this list.
>
>         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.

Not preferred, but see comment on option 1.
>
>         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).
>
Not preferred, but see comment on option 1.

>         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.
>
Not preferred

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

For the same reasons given with respect to Q2, this is probably the
preferred starting position if we are forced into black or white decisions
>
>         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.)

However, this would be my personal option (count my vote!) - I can see a
case for non-shared TLDs for .int .mil .gov .edu and their ccTLD analogues,
for example.
>
>         Option 3:  ICANN would not require registries to support
> competitive registrars in any of their gTLDs, although registries might
> independently choose to do so.

Not preferred
>