Re: [wg-c] Compromise proposal

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

Hi Petter,
> _Before_ any new gTLDs can be introduced we must have(...)

I'd actually go further on this. Putting the problems in order I'd say we
have:

1-what rights does the registry have vis-a-vis ICANN and the particular TLD
 it is doing the registry work for?
2--who decides what gTLD is actually going to be created?
3-> a) a speedy and effective dispute resolution process (preferably mandatory)
3-> b) a system for protecting famous and well-known trademarks across all gTLDs, and
(For me there is little difference between a & b, as a correct DRP will
necessarily protect trademarks, or it will get sued to hell)

4-Specs of how prospective registry running entities are supposde to operate
(economic, technical, whatever). For those that say that ICANN should not
meddle in dictating business models, then fine, but it has to be openly
stated as such. Whether ICANN dictates much, little or nothing on the
business models, it HAS to be stated.
4b-> c) an easy and cost-effective system for obtaining full contact information
   For me this is just a sub-part of 4.

Until the above points are clarified, then we're just thrashing about like
crazy, and getting nowhere.
I believe that the BIG show-stopper is number-1. Of course, any rules that
apply to new gTLDs, *should* apply (as much as possible) to the existing
gTLDs, or at least the existing ones should have a timetable to bring them
into line.

I believe that unless 1 is sorted out, nothing can be done. I also believe
very strongly that it is not the business of this group to decide about
point one, (or at least we haven't been tasked for it), and that whatever
gets decided about point one, it WILL go to court.

I insist:

We should tell ICANN "clarify the NSI situation" (which is also what point 1
is all about) as it paralyzes us.

Yours, John Broomfield.