Re: [wg-c] chair

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

At 01:49 PM 11/13/99 -0800, Rick H. Wesson wrote:
>
>WG Chair:
>where is the chair for this group? we need some clear leadership
>determining what work this wg needs to accomplish.
>could the chair please enumerate the current golas and milestones that we
>need to meet for our success?

Good question.  We've been operating without formal goals and milestones for a while now.  We abandoned the timetable in the group's original charter when it became clear that [1] the schedule was wildly unrealistic; [2] the statement of work incorporated assumptions that were sharply contested within the working group.  But Rick is right that we need to stay focused on our ultimate deliverable(s).

As I see it, the WG's primary deliverable is a document addressing the following questions (not necessarily in this order or format): Should there be new gTLDs?  Should ICANN require that the new TLDs be predominantly or entirely limited-purpose, or should it also authorize new general-purpose gTLDs?  How many new gTLDs should ICANN seek to authorize, and what should the transition to an expanded namespace look like?  Should ICANN require that each new gTLD registry be shared?  Should ICANN require that each new gTLD registry be operated on a non-profit (cost-recovery) basis?  How should ICANN select the new domains and registries?

We've gotten pretty well through the first three of those six questions. That is, we've reached rough consensus that there should be new gTLDs.  Although we've never had a formal consensus call, I believe we could, without too much difficulty, achieve rough consensus that ICANN should authorize (at least in the long term) both general-purpose and limited-purpose gTLDs.  And we found rough consensus within the group for the compromise proposal that ICANN should begin with a testbed consisting of six to ten new gTLDs, followed by an evaluation period.  As the current exchanges make clear, OTOH, we've still got vigorous debate on the last three questions.

One possible approach we could take in terms of goals and milestones would be to split our final report into two.  Part One would address the first three questions listed above; I'd hope that it could be completed within a month after the end of the comment period on the interim report. Part Two would address the latter three questions, and would move forward on a slower timeframe.

Reactions?

It's been raised on the list whether issues such as whether a registry is for-profit or non-profit are within ICANN's scope at all.  FWIW I'll note the following four paragraphs from the White Paper:

>>>>
> b. Competitive Registries.  Comments: Many commenters voiced strong opposition to the idea of competitive and/or for-profit domain name registries, citing one of several concerns.  Some suggested that top level domain names are not, by nature, ever truly generic. As such, they will tend to function as "natural monopolies" and should be regulated as a public trust and operated for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole.  Others suggested that even if competition initially exists among various domain name registries, lack of portability in the naming systems would create lock-in and switching costs, making competition unsustainable in the long run. Finally, other commenters suggested that no new registry could compete meaningfully with NSI unless all domain name registries were not-for-profit and/or noncompeting.  
>
> Some commenters asserted that an experiment involving the creation of additional for-profit registries would be too risky, and irreversible once undertaken. A related concern raised by commenters addressed the rights that  for-profit operators might assert with respect to the information contained in registries they operate.  These commenters argued that registries would have inadequate incentives to abide by DNS policies and procedures  unless the new corporation could terminate a particular entity's license to operate a registry.  For-profit operators, under this line of reasoning, would be more likely to disrupt the Internet by resisting license terminations. 
>
> Commenters who supported competitive registries conceded that, in the absence of domain name portability, domain name registries could impose switching costs on users who change domain name registries. They cautioned, however, that it would be premature to conclude that switching costs provide a sufficient basis for precluding the proposed move to competitive domain name registries and cited a number of factors that could protect against registry opportunism. These commenters concluded that the potential benefits to customers from enhanced competition outweighed the risk of such opportunism. The responses to the Green Paper also included public comments on the proposed criteria for registries.
>
> Response:  Both sides of this argument have considerable merit.  It is possible that additional discussion and information will shed light on this issue, and therefore, as discussed below, **the U.S. Government has concluded that the issue should be left for further consideration and final action by the new corporation**.  The U.S. Government is of the view, however, that competitive systems generally result in greater innovation, consumer choice, and satisfaction in the long run.  Moreover, the pressure of competition is likely to be the most effective means of discouraging registries from acting monopolistically. Further, in response to the comments received, **the U.S. government believes that new corporation should establish and implement appropriate criteria for gTLD registries**.  Accordingly, the proposed criteria are not part of this policy statement.
<<<<

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, WG-C
weinberg@msen.com