[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises...
I'm in agreement with this. Something like TESTtld
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Ross
> Wm. Rader
> Sent: Monday, September 13, 1999 9:03 PM
> To: Jim Glanz; Jonathan Weinberg; Paul Garrin
> Cc: wg-c@dnso.org
> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
>