Re: [wg-c] Where we go from here

["A.M. Rutkowski" <amr@netmagic.com>]

Hi Jonathan,

>1.  What process should ICANN use to select new gTLD registries?

A lottery or similar random process.


>         2. What minimum qualifications must a gTLD registry have?  In 
> particular,
>must it be a nonprofit entity?

Must be a for-profit entity.  The world doesn't need more
non-profits pandering to some cause.


>         3. Must all gTLD registries operate an open SRS?  (If so, should 
> there be
>common SRS software?  How is it to be developed, and by whom?)

The Internet doesn't need more private government regulation.


>         4. What process should ICANN use to select new gTLD strings?

Let the lottery winners select.


>         5. What characteristics must a new gTLD have?  In particular, 
> must it have
>a "charter" reflecting a specialized purpose?

A what?  Let's get away from socialist managed economy models
here and let the marketplace solutions prevail.


>         6. What rules should be in place regarding access to registrant data?
>Should ICANN mandate minimum information that a registrant must provide?
>If so, what should that information be?  Should it mandate the manner in
>which registry or registrars in new gTLDs should make that information
>available?  Should there be a centralized database?

ICANN should get out of the private regulatory model mode.
No Internet service provider regulation.


>         7. What further conditions relating to trademark-domain name 
> issues, if
>any, should be satisfied before new gTLDs are introduced?  In particular,
>should ICANN postpone the introduction of new gTLDs until after completing
>its deliberations on the "famous marks" issue currently before WG-B -- and,
>assuming it decides in favor of new famous-mark rules, implementing those
>rules?

ICANN should move to stop it's restraint of trade ASAP.


>         8. How should ICANN proceed with the initial deployment of new 
> gTLDs? How
>large should that rollout be?  (We've already reached some tentative
>conclusions on this point.)

Same as 7, above.