Re: [wg-c] STRAW POLL

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

At 12:17 AM 2/12/00 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 03:30:02PM -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>> I think Kent's first argument is simply wrong -- it is based on the notion
>> that a chartered TLD is not a "gTLD".  It's true that Kent circulated a
>> note last summer proposing that we define gTLD as "a TLD that has no
>> enforced criteria for the entities that may register in it," but his
>> proposal got no support.
>
>That wasn't the source of that definition.  The source of the defintion 
>was the "gTLD" in the "gTLD-MoU".  The MoU explicitly defined the term gTLD 
>as I have described.  Prior to that time the term gTLD was almost 
>ignored; the meaning in wide use is the one defined by the gTLD-MoU.  
>Moreover, the person that wrote the charter to this WG came from the 
>MoU perspective, and the meaning intended in the charter to this WG is 
>as I have discribed.  There is nothing to argue about.  You wish to 
>change the charter of the WG to include chartered TLDs -- it clearly 
>did not contemplate them in the beginning.  We can ask Javier, but it 
>really isn't necessary.  The intent of this WG was quite clear from the 
>beginning, and it definitely did not include chartered TLDs.  Indeed, 
>if you look at the text of the charter, and the list of tasks it 
>listed, it is quite clear that chartered TLDs were not intended.

	This is quite silly.  Here's WG-C's first task as defined in its charter,
which is on <http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990625.NCwgc.html>:

Should there be new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs)? If yes: How many?
Which? At which speed should they be deployed and in which order? What
should be the mechanism for developing new gTLDs after all these are
deployed.  *Should each new gTLD have a specific charter?*

	I'll quote it again: this WG was explicitly tasked to decide whether "each
new gTLD [should] have a specific charter."  For better or for worse,
that's the job we were given.  There's no room for an argument that the
word "gTLD" in *our* 1999 charter somehow does not include a "gTLD [with] a
specific charter."

>> [my own text snipped]
>
>This straw poll is simply silly.  There in fact has been little
>meaningful discussion of charters or sponsors -- we don't even have a
>clear consensus on definitions of the terms (note how the lack of
>consensus on the definition of "gTLD" causes problems even today). 
>
>So this poll is essentially equivalent to asking whether or not we
>should support gaborbalizif.  Such straw polls are not a useful way to
>proceed in a WG.

	It's a shame -- and a loss -- that you're not participating.  You did vote
when I asked a similar question in a straw poll some months ago.  Back
then, you favored "option 1" for selecting new TLDs, under which "[e]ach
proponent of a new gTLD would apply to the NC for formation of a WG devoted
to that gTLD string (or to several strings).  The WG would then generate a
charter for each proposed new TLD, and it would be up to the NC and ICANN
to approve the WG's product."  At the time, we were all over the lot on the
issue.  Since then, the WG has spent a bunch of time debating chartered
TLDs (particularly in the second half of December).  I'm hopeful, after
further ventilating the issues, that we'll do better in this poll.  We may
not -- and, in any event, I don't think a straw poll should be the end of
our analysis.  I do think it's an appropriate step at this point to see
where we stand.

	Kent -- you wrote recently, in a note to ga, that there were things you
wish I had done differently.  FWIW, I agree with you.  And I think it's
likely that we regret a lot of the same things.  But we're here, and I
think we'd do well to push forward in the forum we've got.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, wg-c
weinberg@msen.com