Re: [wg-c] straw poll -- final reminder

["Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>]

At 23:21 31-08-1999 -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:

        A reminder, for those of you who have been following the debate over
whether we should be conducting the straw poll: That poll closes at
midnight EDT on Wednesday ("tomorrow" as I write this; "today" for most of
you reading it).  If you haven't yet submitted your views, I urge you to do
so.

        (That means you, Mark Langston, Jean-Michel Becar, Roger Cochetti, Rita
Odin, Marilyn Cade, Tod Cohen, Elisabeth Porteneuve, Bill Semich, Richard
Lindsay, Ken Stubbs, William Walsh, Kilnam Chon, Ross Wm. Rader, Mark
Measday, Robert F. ConnElly, Hal Lubsen, Ann-Catherine Andersson, Javier
Sola, Martin Schwimmer, Kathryn Klieman, Petter Rindforth, John Lewis,
Caroline Chicoine, and a bunch of others).

Jon

Dear Jonathan:

I'm sure I voted.  It was predominantly yes on option 1 with the
caveat that we could more toward more gTLDs after a *successful* roll out
of the first few gTLDs.

Regards,
BobC



> 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.

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

"I've sawed this board off three times, and it's *still* too short".

Carpenter foreman.