[wg-c] Short Position Paper

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

[I present this as a set of principles, many of which are compatible
with other proposals.  I invite others to sign.]


                  Position Paper on New gTLDs


1) Five to nine new TLD names be approved forthwith with the intent
that they be run as totally open gTLDs.  No further open gTLD names
should be approved until a process for approval of "chartered" or
"sponsored" TLDs is in place, and at least as many "chartered" or
"sponsored" TLDs are approved. 

These initial names should be selected completely independent of any
consideration of registries to run them. 

2) ICANN should publish a Request For Proposal for registry
operators.  The goal of this RFP would be the selection of at least
five independent registry operators.  At least one registry operator
should be selected from each ICANN geographical region. 

3) The proposals generated by the RFP should for the operation of a
registry in general, and should not be tied to any particular TLD
name or names.  ICANN should select these registries on the following
grounds: 1) on regional affiliation; 2) plans to implement the
"public service" model, described below; 3) technical competence.

4) Allocation of TLD names to registries should not happen until
after the registry operators are selected, and should be done through
a completely independent process -- perhaps random selection. 

5) ICANN should also publish an RFP for "sponsored" or "chartered"
TLDs, to give entities that feel such TLDs should exist the
opportunity to propose them.  Such proposals would need to go through
an approval process to be developed by ICANN/DNSO. 

6) ICANN should support the standardization effort in the IETF for a shared
registry protocol, and that the new registries commit to using and
developing this protocol. 

7) All new registries, with the possible exception of "sponsored"
TLDs that have a good justification for exception, should operate
according to the public resource model described below:

  The registry data is considered a public resource, subject to
  privacy limitations, held in trust for the public by ICANN. 

  The registry is operated as a shared registry on a not-for-profit
  cost-recovery basis.  The registry operator, however, may be a
  for-profit company, operating the registry under contract to ICANN,
  or to an ICANN-approved registry sponsor.  The registry operator
  may be removed for cause, and the contract would be rebid on a
  periodic basis. 

  A TLD may be run under the aegis of a registry sponsor, which may
  enforce restrictions on registration in the TLD.  Such restrictions
  must be approved by ICANN, and must be fairly enforced. 

  Since the data in the registry is considered a public resource, it
  should be escrowed under different control from the registry
  operator, and in widely dispersed jurisdictions and locations. 

  There should be several registry operators, any one of which could,
  within a few days, assume operation of a gTLD registry from
  escrowed data.  These registry operators should be distributed
  worldwide.  Presumably each registry operator would operate several
  TLD registries at the same facility. 

  The transfer of registries from one registry operator to another
  must be a straightforward technical operation. 

  [Registry operators can fail; physical disasters can strike a
  particular installation.  Having multiple dispersed registry sites
  with multiple operators gives a great deal of robustness to the
  whole DNS.  A single monolithic site, no matter how secure, can
  fail, but distributing registries like this, with escrowed copies
  of the registry data available for quick switch-overs would be a far
  more bombproof and resilient system. 

  A requirement of easy transferability of registry data is that the
  underlying software and protocols be standardized.]


  Kent Crispin

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain