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

["Martin B. Schwimmer" <martys@interport.net>]

I abstain pending WG-D's comments on this group.


At 11:21 PM 8/31/99 -0400, you 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. 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.
>
>

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @