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

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

There are no standing gTLD registries with the exception of NSI. There are
alternative registries, alternative roots and a dozen other models - none
of which have current standing in the existing process, and likely won't
until they are recognized by NSI (ergo DOC) or ICANN.

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Ambler <cambler@iodesign.com>
To: Ross Wm. Rader <ross@ebarn.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 12:09 AM
Subject: Re: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises...


>The test-bed, being an economic benefit to those involved, will
>surely be halted by an injunction should standing registries not
>be involved.
>
>Ask yourself what CORE would have done if they were not
>a testbed registrar? How about register.com? I had a very
>interesting coversation with the heads of both organizations
>before the "winners" were announced. Their positions had
>been made very clear to ICANN and the consequences
>of their not being included spelled out in no uncertain
>terms. Surprising who ICANN chose? Not really.
>
>The same thing will happen again. Count on it.
>
>Christopher
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Ross Wm. Rader <ross@ebarn.com>
>To: Christopher Ambler <cambler@iodesign.com>
>Cc: <wg-c@dnso.org>
>Sent: Monday, September 13, 1999 9:12 PM
>Subject: Re: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises...
>
>
>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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>