Re: [wg-c] compromise proposal

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@ebarn.com>]

>
> A factual analysis of the TLD increases over the
> seven year period from July 1992 to July 1999 under
> the IANA regime, indicates that the six month increases
> in new TLDs had a statistical mean of 16.6 and a
> median of 13.5

I have to question the relevancy of these numbers when the TLDs in question
were introduced into the system by pre-existing procedures. Using the same
methodology, my factual analysis indicates that there were no new gTLDs
introduced into the system. A large part of this is due to the fact that
there was no process by which these TLDs would be introduced. Which brings
us right back to where we started - our job is to make recommendations about
this process and present it for comments.

>
> It is a fair question to ask - on what basis would
> this working group, ICANN or the US Dept of Commerce
> significantly impede  this increase?  Clearly it is
> not technology or operations.

Apples and oranges - ICANN and the DOC do not represent an impediment to the
introduction of new gTLDs, unless of course you count this groups failure to
achieve consensus.

>
> I appreciate the competing interests here, but
> whatever else this process is - it is also a record
> that will surely be invoked in subsequent litigation.
>
> Lest it be viewed as purely arbitrary and capricious,
> or even unfairly manipulative, some articulation of
> decision factors and weighting is critical to this
> ongoing process.
>

I agree - keep in mind however, that there is nothing wrong with a statement
on our behalf to the effect of "there is no real precedent, therefore we
took a shot in the dark based on similar situations". In large part, this is
why WG-C tends to fall back on bad analogies - because there are no real
historical events with which we can contrast our ideas.

Anyways, my point is that no matter how many registries and how many gTLDs
we propose take part of the test-bed, it will likely be an arbritary number.

Now, since no one has made any public commentary on my last proposal, here
it is again....

"1.Should there be new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs)? If yes: How many?
Which? At which speed should they be deployed and in which order? What
should be the mechanism for developing new gTLDs after all these are
deployed. Should each new gTLD have a specific charter? "

Yes, new gTLDs should be created. They should be deployed in such a fashion
that they become virtually unlimited in number. Initially, ten new gTLDs
should be deployed through a process similar to the ICANN/NSI/DOC
test-bed. The specific TLDs deployed during this test-bed should be
determined by the registries selected to participate. Terms for
participation should include uniquess of business model, technical
stability of the organization, lack of prior use of the gTLD and a clear
understanding of the long term dynamics that the process implies.
After the test phase, new gTLDs should be deployed as quickly as a sane
and reasonable process for deployment allows. Development of new gTLDs
should be instituted by registries wishing to take part in the process.
Specifically, they should name TLDs that they wish to operate, and these
TLDs will be added to the root on a first in, first out manner. The charter
for the TLD should be determined by the registry.


"2.What should the registration and data maintenance process and regulation
be?."

The process and regulation of this information should be similar to the
current ICANN/NSI/DOC registrar data maintenance and regulation policies.

"3.How should the new gTLDs be managed? What should the registry(ies) be
like? Is it mandatory to have a new registry(ies)? Why? Does the structure
proposed comply with worldwide concepts of anti-trust law? What information
should be made public by the registry(ies) and how?
Obligations of the registry(ies)."

gTLDs should be managed by the registries as they see fit within ICANN
guidelines. While it is not specifically necessary that new registries be
created, this is likely in the best interests of the Internet public.
Registry operation must be conducted within the guidelines of a carefully
constructed agreement between ICANN and the potential registry. Failure to
comply with established operation and procedural guidelines will ultimately
result in the removal of the registry contract. Registries should release
as little registrant information as possible, certainly no more than is
currently released by operating registries. This information should be made
available through an interactive database lookup system similar to the
existing whois system.