[wg-c] straw poll results

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

	Fewer people voted in the second phase of the straw poll than in the
first.  While 44 people voted in the first phase, only 25 voted in the second.

	In question two, just under half of the voters -- twelve people -- voted
for options one or two.  Both of those options contemplate that ICANN will
decide on the new gTLD strings, using an ad hoc approach to choose the
gTLDs that it thinks will best serve the Internet community, and then
solicit applications from would-be or existing registries to run those
TLDs.  Six people voted for option one (each proponent of a new gTLD
applies to the NC for formation of a WG devoted to that gTLD), and six for
option two (a standing WG makes periodic proposals for new gTLDs).  Two
people voted for option three (all gTLDs are limited-purpose and selected
by ICANN to fit into a predetermined structure for the namespace, such as a
Yellow Pages-like taxonomy).  Five people voted for option four (ICANN
starts by adding the existing "alternate" gTLDs), and eight people voted
for option five (ICANN picks registries, which in turn choose their own TLD
strings).  (Those numbers reflect some double-counting because two people
voted for both option four *and* option five.)  These figures suggest that
the voters were all over the lot on the issues covered by question two, and
no obvious consensus appears.

	In question three, eleven people voted for option one (all registries
should be nonprofit).  Four people voted for option three (in addition to
the nonprofit registries, there can also be for-profit ones, running a
small number of gTLDs).  Nine voted for option four (in addition to the
nonprofit registries, there can also be for-profit ones, without
limitations on the number of gTLDs), although two of those people added
caveats suggesting that their views were in fact closer to option three.
One person's comments made it impossible to tell whether to pigeonhole him
into option two, three or four.  In any event, fourteen people voted in
favor of having for- profit registries.  Once again, the straw poll does
not suggest a consensus.  It's notable, though, that a majority of those
voting favored a mixed system of for-profit and nonprofit registries.

	In question four, twelve people voted for option one (all gTLDs must be
shared).  Eight voted for option two (an ICANN rule presumptively requires
that gTLDs be shared, but ICANN would allow exceptions in particular
cases).  Five voted for option three (no sharing requirements).  These
results seem to me striking.  On the one hand, 80% of those participating
voted for options one or two -- that is, that ICANN should impose *some*
sharing requirement.  On the other hand, a majority of those voting
indicated that there should be room for non-shared TLDs as well.  This
suggests to me that the WG may well be able to find rough consensus around
option two as a compromise position (or, at the very least, that *if* the
WG is able to find rough consensus, it will be around option two).

	My own evaluation of the results: The vote suggests that question two (how
to select gTLD strings and registries) is the hardest one we have to
resolve.  We're all over the lot on that one.  On question three (mixed
system or nonprofit only), we're split as well.  While the votes suggest a
slight majority favoring the mixed system, it's impossible to tell whether
that majority would hold up if the entire WG were polled.  On question four
(sharing), by contrast, the numbers suggest a route to a resolution — it
seems likely that option two can provide a workable compromise, consensus,
position.

Jon


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