[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-c] straw poll -- final reminder
Jonathan,
I think that Caroline, Marylin and Ted (sorry if I forgot others)
made a right objections on voting, considering motions from
the NC in Santiago.
As I am listed in your reminder, please find here my
few comments explaining *WHY* I have difficulties to vote.
I am completely open to the issue of gTLDs,
provided that before anything is decided as to process
of their creation ("how many how fast"), we consider
approprietely lessons given by the .com/.org/.net creation.
I would say that almost all problems of .com/.org/.net are
fairly described in the White Paper, and remedies to that
may be observed in day-to-day ICANN process.
The list of main problems:
- monopoly if the gTLD is not shared registry
and the string TLD became popular
- rights to whois and DNS database: no private intellectual
or other property rights inhere to the gTLD itself
as the result of gTLD delegation
(if not it reinforce monopoly)
- the determination of rules for dispute resolution policy
regarding domain names registration (all human activities,
not only Internet related, take names without restriction
from the dictionnaries, which are human global ressource
- once theses activities are projected into the common
Internet domain names space conflicts are inavoidable);
the subsequent are forbidden names (which names shall be
forbidden and why ?)
- determination if on the international level any rule
trying to create gTLD brand name may be reinforced
(I stated that not, the brand name may be reinforced
under one country law, sometimes with difficulties,
maybe under international treaty, but not in the
general international case -- it is exactly what happen
to .com/.org/.net)
Setting up a new gTLD in such a way that all main known problems
we have with .com/.org/.net are avoided from start,
could replace the competition on the registrars level,
which I see much more sane. Then gTLD registries could be seen
as very lightweight group, with the main goal of mutual
responsability to registrants: insure openess to registrars,
notify them a new, yet unknown global dispute rules which may
be necessary for arising new problems,
and guaranty that in case of one registry defect the
corresponding registered domain names will be maintained
by appropriate replacement.
Kind regards,
Elisabeth
> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 23:21:50 -0400
> To: wg-c@dnso.org
> From: Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>
> Subject: [wg-c] straw poll -- final reminder
>
> 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. Connolly, Hal Lubsen, Ann-Catherine Andersson, Javier
> Sola, Martin Schwimmer, Kathryn Klieman, Petter Rindforth, John Lewis,
> Caroline Chicoine, and a bunch of others).
>
> 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.
>