Re: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises...

["Jim Glanz" <bidquik@bigsky.net>]

What happened to .law and .store?

Jim Glanz

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Garrin <pg@name-space.com>
To: Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>
Cc: wg-c@dnso.org <wg-c@dnso.org>
Date: Monday, September 13, 1999 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises...


>I support the 6-10 TLD (initially) compromise,
>although I feel that 10 TLDs is too few.
>
>The "evaluation" period needs to be more
>clearly articluated, as do the criteria for
>selecting registry operators, and which
>TLDs will be initially activated.
>
>Whatever the case, the issuance of new TLDs
>must include several registries, preferably shared,
>including those already operating new TLDs, and
>ideally should represent all models, profit and
>not-for-profit included.
>
>f.y.i. according to our survey, the following are the
>top 20 new TLDs (according to client preference).
>
>space
>web
>art
>info
>design
>media
>shop
>sex
>zone
>travel
>music
>firm
>inc
>online
>arts
>ltd
>mag
>mail
>world
>home
>
>(see http://vote.global-namespace.net)
>
>Best regards,
>
>Paul Garrin
>Founder/CEO
>Name.Space, Inc.
>http://name.space
>http://name.space.xs2.net
>
>
>
>> I agree with much of what Petter says.
>>
>>1) As Javier notes, we reached consensus long ago (in early to mid-July)
>>that there should be new gTLDs.
>>
>>2) ICANN is currently finishing work on a "cybersquatting" dispute
>>resolution process.   Whether there should be a "famous marks" process is
>>outside our jurisdiction, but that's fine; it just means that the
>>desirability of such a process is one of the "details to be suggested by
>>others" that Petter refers to.
>>
>>3) This WG has discussed contact information issues only glancingly.
>>Several folks have urged that such a system must exist, while Javier
>>reposted a message from Michael Froomkin making the case that contact
>>information availability should be limited in at least one TLD.  In any
>>event, though, this is something we can talk about.
>>
>>4 & 5) As I stated a couple of weeks ago, I agree that any proposal that
>>can reach consensus in this WG will have to involve the rollout of a
>>limited number of new gTLDs followed by an evaluation period.
>>
>> I think we can do better, though.  So far, by my count, my compromise
>>proposal for "6-10 new gTLDs followed by an evaluation period" has gotten
>>expressions of support from 14 folks, and expressions of opposition from
>>seven.  (Petter is one of the seven.)  While we're not there yet, I think
>>that's awfully close to the sort of response that would justify a formal
>>vote to determine whether there is rough consensus within the WG on this
>>point.  (What counts, to my mind, in gauging whether there is a sufficient
>>possibility of rough consensus to justify a vote, is the ratio of
expressed
>>support to expressed opposition.  As RFC 2418 puts it: "In general, the
>>dominant view of the working group shall prevail. . . . Note that 51% of
>>the working group does not qualify as ‘rough consensus' and 99% is better
>>than rough.")
>>
>> What do folks think?  (It would be especially good to hear from
>>people who
>>haven't already made their positions clear; it can be frustrating, in this
>>WG, to figure out where the "silent majority" stands.)
>>
>>Jon
>>
>>
>>Jonathan Weinberg
>>co-chair, wg-c
>>weinberg@msen.com
>>
>>
>>
>>At 09:23 AM 9/13/99 +0200, Petter Rindforth wrote:
>>>Dear Javier and All others,
>>>In a try to summarize the discussion so far, I would say that I see
>>possibilities to reach a rough consensus on a few more items:
>>>
>>>1) There should be new gTLDs, provided that
>>>
>>>2) there are linked to a speedy and effective dispute resolution process
>>(details to be suggested by others), and
>>>
>>>3) an easy and cost-effective system for obtaining full contact
information
>>>
>>>4) there should be a limited number of new gTLDs to start with (some
>>"how", "how many" and "which" questions remains to be answered),
>>>
>>>5) followed by an evaluation period ("how long", "what shall be
>>evaluated", "by whom" and "for what purpuse" remains).
>>>
>>>INHO, this is the result of the work of this WG so far, but it is at
least
>>a starting point. I do not believe that we will be able to make consensus
>>on all the remaining questions ("the details") but I do believe that we
can
>>all agree with the general idea listed above.
>>>
>>>Best regards,
>>>Petter
>>>
>>>-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
>>>Från: Javier <javier@aui.es>
>>>Till: wg-c@dnso.org <wg-c@dnso.org>
>>>Datum: den 12 september 1999 12:23
>>>
>>>>This group has reached full consensus on only one item: that there
should
>>>>be new gTLDs.
>>>>
>>>>Any further discussion of this issue only distracts the seach for
consensus
>>>>on other issues.
>>>>
>>>>Javier
>
>
>