RE: [wg-c] compromise proposal

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	I think the "test bed" concept will work.  I part company, though,
with the proposal to add five new gTLDs in the first round.  For the
reasons that I set out in my earlier message, I think the only proposal
with a reasonable chance of winning rough consensus across the broad range
of views represented in this group (ranging from folks interested in
adding only one gTLD to folks interested in the immediate start of a
phased rollout of hundreds or more) is one to add 6-10 gTLDs followed by
an evaluation.  If we can achieve rough consensus, we've done a
huge amount.

Jon


Jon Weinberg
co-chair, WG-C
weinberg@msen.com


On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Jean-Michel Becar wrote:

> A quick response
> 
> Why not to follow the registrar test bed process and let's start with one
> TLD per registry:
> 
> 1- Create a "charter" for the test bed registries: 
> 	Technical aspects
> 	Human ressources
> 	Finances ......
> - Something close to the test bed registrar accreditation and during the
> test bed period review this document
> 
> 2- Call for applications: Select 5 test bed registries
> 
> 3- Make a call for an neutral "kind of interop center" to test the
> registration and the technical process Or call for registrars to start the
> registration in the new TLDs
> 
> 3- Run the test bed for a first period of 4 months, 
> 
> 4 - Check if everything is running well 
> 
> 
> The only problem I left, and I think will be the most difficult to fix: Who
> will decide which TLD will be introduced? The ICAN board? The registries
> itself? the DNSO ?
> 
> 
> Jean-Michel Bécar
> becar@etsi.fr
> http://www.etsi.org
> E.T.S.I. Project Manager
> Tel	: +33 (0)4 92 94 43 15
> Mobile  : +33 (0)6 82 80 19 31
> Fax      	: +33 (0)4 92 38 52 15
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:weinberg@mail.msen.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 05:46
> > To: wg-c@dnso.org
> > Subject: [wg-c] compromise proposal
> > 
> > 
> > 	Some quick responses to questions people have asked:
> > 
> > 	It seems to me sensible that, in this sort of limited initial
> > rollout, each new registry should be restricted to a single gTLD.  
> > (Jean-Michel Becar, as well as Roeland, urged this in our earlier
> > discussion.)  Six to ten new gTLDs, thus, would mean six to ten new
> > registries.  Two caveats:  (1) If Roeland is correct and 
> > ICANN can't in
> > fact find that many qualified entities seeking to be 
> > registries, then I
> > expect it would want to rethink this limitation.  (2) In any 
> > event, after
> > the initial rollout, once ICANN has moved on to Stage Two, it 
> > would make
> > sense for it to establish procedures not only to admit additional
> > registries, but also to allow existing registries to add 
> > additional TLDs.
> > 
> > 	I suspect that this formulation helps answer Chris's question as
> > well.  With the opportunity to authorize six to ten new registries, if
> > ICANN excludes any major player, it won't be for lack of a 
> > slot to put it
> > in.
> > 
> > 	I saw your "Back to the charter post," Ross, and it was 
> > a big part
> > of the history that I relied on in trying to put my 
> > compromise together.
> > (I apologize for not giving you credit.)  I tried to make my proposal
> > simpler and shorter.  I figured that the more components a 
> > proposal has,
> > the more sticking points there are, and the harder it is to secure
> > broad-based agreement.
> > 
> > Jon
> > 
> > 
> > Jonathan Weinberg
> > co-chair, WG-C
> > weinberg@msen.com
> > 
> > 
> 


Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg@msen.com