RE: [wg-c] Developing negotiating points

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Dave, thanks for your questions. I'll be able to focus on answering some;
I'm out of the country, and trying to do my "day job" as well as pay
attention to the many listserv's traffic.   So, I'll do the quick ones... 

On participation:  
I'm getting concerned about the non-productivity of the bottoms-up approach
to how the groups operate. They are very time consuming at this time and not
very "participant friendly".  

I spoke this week end to four different people who told me that they are on
the listservs, but can't keep up, and find them filled with personalized
conversations and that they are very concerned that meaningful participation
isn't possible. In each case, I asked what would help, and it is: process,
order, agendas, focus on presenting well thoughtout positions, which can
then be responded to. More time to think about responses, and then the
ability to respond to drafts, without the fear that if one doesn't
participate in the drafting, that comments won't be accepted... 

I found myself so sympathetic to what they were saying.  It seems that we
are clearly in the "storming" stage of a "group".  It is frankly
overwhelming and depressing to me when I realize that the challenge of
broadening and deepening participation is dependent upon getting a coherent
process in place so that people who run businesses, or are non profit users,
or are busy individuals can participate and not be punished by others who
are also participating.  

On the number of gTLDs to start:  we conclude "one" because we are talking
about a pilot first, before moving on. 

We do think that we have a good understanding of what customers, large and
small, are looking for. Afterall, we deal every day with customers who seek
to register domain names; we presently provide that service to our
customers. In addition, we are an accredited registrar, and as soon as the
process advances with NSI's agreements with DOC, count on being among the
competitive registrars. 

ccTlds: Dave, these are very valuable and well used registries in other
countries. There is no reason that .us couldn't be the same. In some
meetings I've had with small busineses/mid sized regional businesses, they
are not intending to be global in nature; they are seeking to be accessible
in their locale (whatever that is); in some cases, one state; in others,
multiple states; in some, the U.S. and two or three other countries. They
aren't seeking .com; they are seeking to have an address which is logical.
When I've asked them about .uk; fr; and .us; they were enthusiastic about
the usability and logical aspects of using these ccTLDs.  It all depends on
where they are focused on doing business. We have let .com overtake the
usability of .us; we could market .us to death; maybe offer a two year
initial registration w/o cost as an incentive, and see if we could built its
use... It's an idea; and one that might have some merit for local
enterprises.  I know this will elicit some backlash from those who deny that
anything other than new gTLDs are needed, but one wonders why a local "meals
on wheels" for Eagle River, Wisconsin would want an address other than
something which was tied to Wisconsin.l..

So, my point was we need to not overlook the importance of the ccTLD
marketplace as to some extent dealing with the "no names" paranoia that I
sometimes hear. 

Thanks for listening. 
And asking. 

Marilyn Cade
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 1999 3:03 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: wg-c@dnso.org; Esther Dyson; Greg Crew; Mike Roberts; George
Conrades; Frank Fitzsimmons; Hans Kraaijenbrink; Jun Murai; Geraldine
Capdeboscq; Eugenio Triana; Linda Wilson
Subject: [wg-c] Developing negotiating points


Marilyn,

At 10:26 AM 9/11/99 , Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>Milton, I appreciate the personalized posting. :-)

Isn't it fascinating how difficult it is to avoid indulging in that
tendency?

>So, we continue to support the trial of one new gTLD, with an evaluation

In a complex problem space, such as the current one, it is at least as 
important to hear the reasons, as it is to hear the positions.  In other 
words, it would be extremely helpful to hear the specific concerns and 
logic which you feel dictates the position you are taking.

Detail is particularly helpful.  For example we know that you have long had 
a basic concern about protecting a famous trademark; that's fine.  But how 
does that concern lead to concluding one, rather than 3 or 10 or 300 new 
gTLDs?  My understanding is that the primary concern is policing against 
infringement/dilution activities; it should be noted that policing is 
currently impaired by the policies of the current, sole gTLD registry, and 
that tools for assisting in that on-going "research" requirement can (and 
have) been developed, such as by CORE.

In the interest of efficiency let me try to prime the pump, a bit, by 
pointing out some difficulties with a number as low as one, in spite of the 
trademark policing concerns which push for the lowest possible number.

I'll concede that, given the strength of that concern from many members of 
the trademark community, "one" does represent progress; it is common to 
hear insistence on "none".  Still the question is whether "one" permits 
achieving useful goals and/or creates additional, serious problems.

To make sure there is basic agreement about the reasons for making any 
changes at all -- Additional gTLDs are desired to:

         a) increase competition in the hope that the competition will 
improving service and reduce prices; and

         b) increase name choice for registrants, in the hope that 
registrants can more easily find and register names that are "natural" to 
their purpose.


1.  Registry

One name means, at most, one new registry.  Does that permit a reasonable 
basis for evaluating additional competition?  Probably not.  A typical 
number for such experimental phases is 3.  (Whether this number includes 
the current gTLD registry is a reasonable question.  My own opinion is that 
it should not, since part of the evaluation needs to be about registry 
start-up effort and looking at only two examples limits the analysis too
much.)

It is also worth noting that the sole, current gTLD registry happens to 
control 3 gTLDs, so that blocks of 3 would do a better job of permitting 
comparative parity.


2.  Names

Does only one additional name permit evaluation of improvement in 
registrant name choice efficacy?  Doesn't seem likely.

Again a multiple of three fits this sort of experimental approach much
better.

The combination of these factors suggests 2-3 new registries, each 
administering 3 new gTLDs.


>period before any further movement takes place. We remain unconvinced at
>this time that it would be responsible to do other than than. We also
firmly
>believe that it is important to support the continuing valuable role of the
>ccTLDs and would like to see .us become as viable and well used as many
>other ccTLDs.

A negotiation is also helped by maintaining focus.  Since the topic is 
gTLDs, what inter-dependency requires discussing ccTLDs?

d/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                                         Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting                               Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive                             <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA                 <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>