Re: [wg-c] STRAW POLL

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 15:30 11/02/00 -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:

>QUESTION ONE

>4. ICANN should simply select new registries and leave issues of names and
>charters (including whether to limit the universe of people who can
>register in the domain, and if so how) to the new registries.
>
>
>QUESTION TWO

>4. ICANN should simply select new registries and leave issues of names and
>charters (including whether to limit the universe of people who can
>register in the domain, and if so how) to the new registries.
>
>
>QUESTION THREE

>
>5. Each person proposing a new gTLD applies to the Names Council for the
>formation of a working group devoted to that gTLD (or to several gTLDs).
>The working group identifies a registry/sponsor, and generates a charter,
>for its proposed new TLD.  If the gTLD is approved, then the entity
>identified by the working group becomes the registry/sponsor.  The identity
>of the registry operator may be set for competitive bid (and periodic rebid).
>
For a quick straw poll I feel closest to this solution, although many
details should still be worked out, especially with regards to the
formation of the WG, the generation of a Charter (!)  , the approval
procedure by the NC, the representativity of the NC and the method chosen
for competitive tendering.

For the future holders of SLD's in such new gTLD's the stability (also
financial) and the democratic setup of such registries are paramount. 



--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  , founder  of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org  (or direct:) 
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/