Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU

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

	Two thoughts:

	1. Kent writes:
>It is not clear at this point that ICANN has the power to create a
>new TLD of any kind -- recall that it is DoC that currently holds the
>keys to the root, and that the DoC is vulnerable to many pressures that
>we don't see. 
>That is, even if ICANN somehow approves the 10 you fondly dream about,
>that doesn't mean they will get in the root.  ICANN of course knows
>this, and is not going to generate a confrontation over the issue. 

	I think this is quite mistaken.  I'm writing from the dubious perspective
of having worked closely with all of the USG players on this issue, most
especially Becky Burr, during my brief tenure as a bureaucrat in the run-up
to the Green and White papers.  I've seen the various pressures on DoC.
But I'm quite confident that if a new gTLD proposal runs the gauntlet of
the ICANN process, it will be approved by USG.  And I think that ICANN
knows that too.

	2. Kent points out that we haven't done much to develop the processes for
the introduction of new TLDs, and he's right  -- it's nice that we've got
recommendations about the need for new TLDs, and about the size of the
initial rollout, but that's only the first step. We still have before us
issues including:  What process should ICANN use to select new gTLD
registries? What minimum qualifications must a gTLD registry have?  In
particular, must it be a nonprofit entity? 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?) What process should ICANN use to select new gTLD
strings?  What characteristics must a new gTLD have?  In particular, must
it have a "charter" reflecting a specialized purpose? 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? What further conditions relating to
trademark-domain name issues, if any, should be satisfied before new gTLDs
are introduced? 

	The fault for this, over the past few weeks, has been mine -- I've had the
job of moving these issues forward, and I haven't done it.  I've been
overwhelmed by other responsibilities,and I'm sorry.  I pledge to do
better.  I'm getting on a plane in a couple hours to attend a conference,
and I won't be back till Tuesday night, so my contributions until Wednesday
will be spotty.  After that, though, I belong to you, and I promise to try
to make up for lost time.  Again, you have my apologies, and a promise to
do better.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg@msen.com




At 06:39 PM 2/4/00 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 06:34:31PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
>> From: "Kent Crispin" <kent@songbird.com>
>> > In my opinion anyone that supports new TLDs in ANY form should support
>> > the .eu proposal.
>> 
>> I understand this perspective. But the effective destruction of DNSO
process
>> would outweigh the benefits of breaking the logjam, particularly if it is
>> done under the subterfuge of a new ccTLD.
>
>There is no reason to think that this would destroy DNSO process.  On 
>the contrary, I think it would create incentive to get real DNSO 
>processes in place.
>
>> > It should be clear to anyone paying attention that
>> > if processes are being developed it is happening at such a slow rate
>> > that it isn't visible to the naked eye.  The gears are completely
>> > stuck, and we need movement to get them unstuck.
>> 
>> In what sense are they stuck? We have overwhelming support in this WG
and in
>> the public comments to proceed with their creation.
>
>There has been strong support for the introduction of new TLDs since 
>before the IAHC.
>
>> The Board has indicated
>> its willingness to discuss the issue at its impending meeting. The next
step
>> is to define more specific ways of implementing the introduction of the
>> first 10 new TLDs. 
>
>Ie, the next step is to define the process.  Ie, we have made zero 
>progress in the definition of process.
>
>> If ICANN's board decides to include .EU in that initial
>> batch, it wouldn't bother me a lot, as long as a procedure was defined to
>> continue adding them.
>
>Ie, ICANN's board will define the process, and the DNSO, and this WG, 
>will have served the incredibly useful purpose of reporting to the 
>Board that there is demand for new TLDs.
>
>> > But seriously -- it may take something with the political force of the EU
>> > to get *ANY* TLD through the system.
>> 
>> That is true ONLY if the "political force" is channelled into the
>> development of an open, nondiscriminatory process. If CEC just manages to
>> win a special concession for itself, it sets a very bad precedent.
>
>Possibly, but it also creates the fact of a new TLD *approved through
>ICANN*.  Right now there are multiple forces arrayed against any new
>TLDs, including some TM interests, some of the ccTLD registries, and of
>course NSI.  Those forces have their greatest effect through the USG. 
>It is not clear at this point that ICANN has the power to create a
>new TLD of any kind -- recall that it is DoC that currently holds the
>keys to the root, and that the DoC is vulnerable to many pressures that
>we don't see. 
>
>That is, even if ICANN somehow approves the 10 you fondly dream about,
>that doesn't mean they will get in the root.  ICANN of course knows
>this, and is not going to generate a confrontation over the issue.  In
>my opinion it will take significant political pressure to get ICANN as 
>a whole in position to even begin using some kind of process.  On the 
>other hand, if ICANN *does* approve a new TLD, the pressure for 
>processes will only intensify -- ICANN itself *needs* a process.
>
>> I would like to know more explicitly where you stand.
>> Are you conceding that ICANN's organic processes are useless?
>> Why are you giving up now?
>
>I'm not giving up anything.  My political awareness is different than 
>yours. 
>
>> The issue has not been passed to the NC, nor
>> formally considered by the Board. The WG has just completed the first phase
>> of its work. How can you say that we are "stuck?"
>
>Because we have accomplished nothing.  No processes will come out of 
>the DNSO until it is clear that they are actually needed.
>
>-- 
>Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
>kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>
>