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

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@ebarn.com>]

Your position on this issue is well documented, counter-productive and (at
least by me) completely discounted.

We are moving towards a test bed geared towards testing technical
implementation, business process and general impact. The relevance of
"your' gTLD is absolutely nil in this context.

On the other hand, I am sure that your interests will be well protected
during the wide rollout that will likely occur afterwords.

-RWR
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Ambler <cambler@iodesign.com>
To: Ross Wm. Rader <ross@ebarn.com>
Date: Monday, September 13, 1999 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises...


>Ross, if new registries are brought online, and Image Online
>Design's .web is not one of them, there will certainly be
>legal action taken to prevent such harm.
>
>It's a non-starter. Those companies involved in this, who
>had assurances from IANA (like IOD and CORE) have
>precident to claim harm if they are not included in the
>initial roll-out. I have no doubt that CORE would sue. I
>know that IOD would.
>
>Christopher
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Ross Wm. Rader <ross@ebarn.com>
>To: Jim Glanz <bidquik@bigsky.net>; Jonathan Weinberg
><weinberg@mail.msen.com>; Paul Garrin <pg@name-space.com>
>Cc: <wg-c@dnso.org>
>Sent: Monday, September 13, 1999 9:03 PM
>Subject: Re: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises...
>
>
>Apologies to Jim - I'm responding to Paul...
>
>This is entirely irrelevant. A sampling of your customers will only serve
>to illustrate what your market focus is. Further, you do not indicate what
>your sample size is...
>
>As far as I am concerned, during the test-bed, I would like to see gTLDs
>introduced that have no prior use by existing "registries". Introducing
>.space, .web or .store into the test phase will only serve to distract us
>with IP issues that are better addressed through process and not trial and
>error.
>
>-RWR
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jim Glanz <bidquik@bigsky.net>
>To: Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>; Paul Garrin
><pg@name-space.com>
>Cc: wg-c@dnso.org <wg-c@dnso.org>
>Date: Monday, September 13, 1999 10:50 PM
>Subject: Re: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises...
>
>
>>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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>