RE: [wg-c] Well, maybe this won't work

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> Jean-Michel Becar> Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 2:16 AM

> Hi all,
>
> I'll try to put points on which we need to agree:
>
> A) It seems that this working is in favour for the
> introduction of new TLDs.
> I think we have a rough consensus on that so please don't
> discuss that point
> any more.

I disagree, we need to formally get this on record. This is one of the
purposes behind a VoteBot. Further, I'd like to see this as an open
vote. Each of us may them see the other position clearly. Contrary to
popular opinion, there is a use for formalism. Once a position is
formally stated, it is much more difficult to back away from it.

> B) How many?

I strongly believe that we should completely defer this until AFTER we
have decided on process and structure for adding new TLDs. Asking this
question too early is what causes dead-lock.

> C) Which one?

Again, this needs to be explicitly defered. In fact, you remaining
points explictly mix the quantity decision with the process/structure
discussion. We need to separate them. It is indicative of the problem we
have been facing.

This is one of those classic situations where we can not move forward
without process and structure. I think that we've been proving that for
over two years now and we've been proving it again during the past few
weeks.

> D) Business model?
> Let's the registry to decide - Once again let's the market to decide.
>
> E) Selection of the registry?
> I think the best think to do *NOW* is to write down a charter
> based on the
> registrar accreditation and let's discuss about it and make
> improvements
> when it will be written. I know that a registrar and a
> registry is different
> but we can use the NSI experience as basis. I also know that
> NSI may be is
> not the best example but this is the only one, so use our
> brain to make
> things better.
>
> F) Who Select?
> 1- ICANN Board
> 2 - DNSO
> 3 - NC
> 4 - Registrars constituency
> 5 - Registry constituency
> I think we need a panel of experts from all of the 5 options.
> Let's say one
> or two persons from each group and the selection of the
> experts could be
> done by draw from a nomination list. and let's call it ROC: Registry
> Oversight Committee (and may be Sean Connery could be the
> chair ;-0 ) or
> call it RAC: Registry Advisory Committee but already exists
> under ICANN
>
> G) Evaluation?
> How long : let's start with 4 months and review the period
> every 2 weeks
> during a teleconf or meeting.
> And let's a working group setting up the criteria's.
>
> H) Growth?
> I often read that we should add X TLDs each months or each
> year, which is
> for me a complete nonsense. OR this could have a sense if we
> are willing to
> create a kind of yellow pages, in that case we know in
> advance which TLD we
> have to add and this kind of planing could be done. BUT if
> our goal is not
> Yellow pages oriented, the companies willing to run a TLD
> will apply and if
> we see a lack of TLD why not to call for registries.
>
> I) Charters needed?
> Our goal is to improve the Domain Name space, so we need
> clear charters for
> each new TLDs to avoid that a company registers a Domain Name
> under all TLDs
> (that the case for .com .org .net NOW).
> But let's the new registry to come up with it and review it
> with the new
> registry.
>
> J) Let's restart the Working C-2 to work on how a registry
> should run from a
> technical point of view.
>
> So during the test bed period we will be able to improve the
> charters, the
> agreements and all others formal documents we need.
> 1- Accreditation
> 2- Registry/registrar Agreement
> 3- TLD Charter
> 4- Data Escrow Format
> 5- Technical details (in case of failure to be able to transfer data)
>
> I hope the discussion will move forward.
>
> Regards,
>
> 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: Monday, September 06, 1999 23:22
> > To: wg-c@dnso.org
> > Subject: [wg-c] Well, maybe this won't work
> >
> >
> > 	After today's flurry of messages, I took another look
> > at where things
> > stand regarding my compromise proposal.  Eight people have
> > posted messages
> > supporting the proposal so far.  All of that support has come
> > from folks
> > who either voted for option one in Question One of the straw
> > poll, or who
> > voted for "neither/both."  (Indeed, the proposal has the
> support of a
> > majority of the "neither/both" crowd.)  The proposal, OTOH, is
> > conspicuously lacking in support from two groups. On one
> > side, it has drawn
> > opposition from Marilyn, Caroline, Petter, Rita, and Keith,
> > as well as Bill
> > and Annie - all of whom see it as insufficiently controlled.
> > On the other
> > hand, it has drawn no formal support from *any* of the people
> > who voted for
> > option two in Question One of the straw poll (except me).  I
> > gather that in
> > the absence of any sign of willingness to compromise from the
> > other side,
> > these folks see no percentage in backing down from their view
> > that 6-10 new
> > gTLDs in the initial rollout is far too *few*.
> >
> > 	I had hoped that enough people in the center could
> > rally round a centrist,
> > compromise  position, that it wouldn't matter that there were
> > holdouts on
> > either side. In the face of this opposition, though, eight
> > people humming
> > in favor just won't do it.  Unless we get a strong surge of
> > support for the
> > proposal now, I'll conclude that it's not going anywhere.
> > I'm fresh out of
> > ideas for forging consensus - anybody else have any?
> >
> > Jon
> >
> >
> > Jonathan Weinberg
> > co-chair, WG-C
> > weinberg@msen.com
> >
>