[wg-c] compromise proposal

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

	Some thoughts in response to the last day's posts:

	Tony suggests that instead of a plan to add 6-10 new gTLDs followed by an
evaluation period, we try to add "13 per six months."  Petter (and Caroline
and Rita), on the other hand, urge that we should add only 2-3, and follow
that with an evaluation period.  Both of these are reasonable positions.
But here's the deal: I think the proposal to add 6-10 gTLDs followed by an
evaluation is the only one 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).  That
proposal doesn't in fact reflect my own views, but I'm willing to support
it anyway, for the sake of actually reaching an agreement that we can take
to the NC.  It may be that this won't work — that enough folks favoring
fewer new gTLDs in the initial rollout will stick to their guns, and enough
folks favoring more will stick to theirs, that we'll be unable to assemble
a critical mass in the middle.  But I hope we can do it.  And, FWIW, we're
getting there.  So far, Robert Connelly, Ross Rader, David Maher, Dave
Crocker, Roeland Meyer, John Broomfield, and Jean-Michel Becar have
indicated willingness to support the proposal, and Milton Mueller and Mark
Langston have indicated a willingness to consider it.  That's a good start.

	Petter, Caroline and Rita argue that the more important question is not
the number of new gTLDs, but rather the intellectual property environment
into which they're introduced — that we must implement speedy effective
ADR, famous mark protection, and a simple and effective contact info system
before instituting the new gTLDs.  I agree that this is an important
question, but I think it's a separate question from the one currently on
the table.  Let's get the "number of initial new gTLDs" issue concluded, as
best we can, and I'm happy to include the "intellectual property
environment" issue as a separate matter for us to talk about (although I
don't think we should devote too much in the way of resources to it, b/c it
*is* primarily the job of other WGs).

	Mark asks about the nature of the evaluation period, and Ross asks about
what happens after the evaluation period.  Here are my thoughts: The point
of the evaluation period, it seems to me, would not be to remove any gTLDs
or registries.  Rather, it would be to allow ICANN to decide whether, how
fast, and how extensively to proceed with rollout of additional gTLDs.  I
like Jean-Michel's characterization of the initial period as a "testbed"
because that carries with it the understanding that the point of the
evaluation period is to look for problems in the initial rollout, and that
ICANN will continue to create new gTLDs unless the initial rollout
demonstrates problems that can't be fixed.  As a practical matter, though,
the decision as to what to do following the initial rollout will be within
ICANN's discretion.

Jon


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