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

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

Exactly - or something like .tucows - which I'm not advocating as there are
IP issues associated with that particular name, but the point is that there
are bazillions of gTLDs that can be used to test on without affecting the
competitive landscape one iota. Maybe .rader would be a better example, or
.test1, .test2 etc. Moving from the test tld to a real one can't be that
difficult no matter how you slice it.

Further, even if we do launch the test with 6-10 that will continue to be
used after the test, I'm not convinced that this is a bad thing - despite
protests to the contrary. As someone else mentioned, this is something best
left to ICANN's legal advisors and not us anyways...

-RWR

----- Original Message -----
From: Roeland M.J. Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
To: Ross Wm. Rader <ross@ebarn.com>; Jim Glanz <bidquik@bigsky.net>;
Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>; Paul Garrin <pg@name-space.com>
Cc: <wg-c@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 11:34 AM
Subject: 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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >