[wg-c] Re: Summary of Ambler-Brunner correspondence on A Position Paper on some new gTLDs

[Eric Brunner <brunner@world.std.com>]

A coda of sorts,

After sufficient thought Christopher Ambler concludes that the
technical and operational criteria for registries is in scope
for Working Group C, and that my draft addresses other issues
than these and is hence out of scope for Working Group C.

I've had the impression for several days now that the terms of
discussion (Ambler, and later Mueller, still to be explored)
are incompatible with "6-9", but closer to "Zero-till-Market".

The position "Zero-till-condition" is shared by several parties,
Network Solutions, the trademark holders agents active in the
same industry, and momentarily ICANN itself. Their predicate
conditions vary opportunistically to their specific benefits.
NSI's is broadly discussed, the trademark agents's appeared in
the WIPO document earlier this year and is recently restated
in Caroloine Chicone's position paper in this working group, and
ICANN's is as broadly discussed as NSI's.

Beyond impression is the return to litigation as the recommended
policy for mechanisms available to resolve conflicts at the TLD
level (registry operation). I'm not convinced that the jurisdiction,
or standing issues are solved, making the fact issues available
for litigation. From the public actions of ICANN's Board, Names
Council, Domain Names Supporting Organization, and that body's
Trademark, Intellectual Property and Anti-Counterfeiting Interests
Constituency, the working set of policy documents produced by those
bodies, e.g., those in the area of dispute resolution, are at odds
with Christopher's recommended policy for conflict resolution at
the TLD level (registry operation).

Left asked but not answered is the question of what can be said
of "6-9", beyond their cardinality and immediacy. I hope that we
can progress beyond a number and a date, though I am confident
that if that is all that Working Group C can accomplish, another
body will provide more specific characterization, if only through
selection of examplar proposals.

In the interests of completeness there was a question Christopher
repeatedly posed which I chose not to respond to, perhaps not the
best course of action. That question was "Why your ethnic group
and not mine?" One answer might be order of incidence, the well
travelled path of "first come first served". Personally I think
better, or at least other answers exist, however I haven't yet
and probably won't spend the necessary time to answer, or find
a common analytical framework in which to answer.

Comment:
Specific to the creation of a tribally operated registry, both
the US and Canada are historically and presently opposed as
matters of broader policies. I wouldn't suggest their position
applies to a broader catagory of registry, such as "one of 6-9",
so their opposition to this proposal is opportunistic, not one
of general applicability.


Eric