RE: [wg-c] STRAW POLL

["Winer, Jonathan" <JWiner@alston.com>]

As a former USG policymaker with a legal-enforcement perspective now working
on e-commerce issues at a US law firm and new to this group, in my first
posting, I note my authoritarian preference for options #1 to each of the
three questions posed. Certainty, predictability, reduced strain on system
design, lowest cost to current users and architecture seem to me important
equities that would be facilitated by an ICANN that exercises greater
control in establishing a standards-based regime, with each top level global
domain representing to some extent a qualitative territority, rather than an
ICANN which devolves its responesbility to facilitate maximum
experimentation in diverse quarters. I appreciate that this appears to be
the minority view amongst those participating in this working group. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Jonathan Weinberg 
> Sent:	Friday, February 11, 2000 3:30 PM
> To:	wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject:	[wg-c] STRAW POLL
> 
> 	Thanks, Kent, for getting me off my duff.  (For those not following
> the
> discussion in ga, Kent Crispin has proposed on that list that the DNSO
> establish a *new* working group, separate from wg-c, to discuss chartered
> gTLDs.  He makes two arguments why a new working group would be
> appropriate.  First, he suggests, chartered TLDs are outside the scope of
> wg-c, b/c our own charter "is explicitly tied to generic TLDs, not any
> other kind of TLDs."  Second, he gently urges that wg-c is not working,
> and
> that we are more likely to see actual progress toward implementation of
> new
> gTLDs by opening up another forum.)
> 
> 	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.  Kent himself noted that his proposal "departs
> from the rfc1591 definition."  RFC 1591 explicitly included all of EDU,
> COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT in its list of "generic TLDs,"
> notwithstanding that some of those are indisputably chartered.  That's
> continued to be the generally accepted terminology.  So whatever reasons
> there may be for establishing a new working group to look at sponsored or
> chartered TLDs, the notion that proposals for establishing those domains
> are outside of wg-c's charter isn't one of them.
> 
> 	I've got a lot of sympathy for Kent's second argument, and I
> understand
> his frustration.  Here's an attempt to start doing something about it.  I
> proposed a couple of weeks ago (and got no objection) that I would post to
> wg-c "a straw poll on the issue of special-purpose or 'chartered' gTLDs:
> That's an issue that got a great deal of attention on the list last month,
> and I expect a straw poll would be helpful in helping us figure out where
> members of the list stand."  So here goes.
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
> Jonathan Weinberg
> co-chair, wg-c
> weinberg@msen.com
> 
> 
> WG-C STRAW POLL
> 
> Please respond before midnight UTC following February 21, 2000.
> 
> 
> QUESTION ONE
> 	Please select from the following possibilities, *as applied to the
> deployment of new gTLDs in the name space over the medium to long term*:
> 
> 1. All new gTLDs must have charters that meaningfully limit the universe
> of
> people who can register in those gTLDs.
> 
> 2. The name space should not include any new chartered gTLDs.
> (Alternatively, if new gTLDs have charters, those charters may not place
> meaningful limits on the universe of people who can register in the gTLD.)
> 
> 3. ICANN, in selecting new gTLDs, should approve some chartered gTLDs and
> some unchartered ones.  (Alternatively, ICANN should require that all
> gTLDs
> have charters, but it should approve some gTLDs with charters that
> meaningfully limit the universe of people who can register in the gTLD,
> and
> some gTLDs with charters that do not impose any such limits.)
> 
> 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
> 	The working group has reached and reaffirmed a recommendation that
> the
> initial expansion of the name space should consist of six to ten new
> gTLDs,
> followed by an evaluation period.  Please select from the following
> possibilities, *as applied to that initial rollout*.
> 
> 1. All of the gTLDs in the initial rollout must have charters that
> meaningfully limit the universe of people who can register in those gTLDs.
> 
> 2. The initial rollout should not include any new chartered gTLDs.
> (Alternatively, any charters for new gTLDs may not place meaningful limits
> on the universe of people who can register in the gTLD.)
> 
> 3. ICANN, in selecting new gTLDs in the initial rollout, should approve
> some chartered gTLDs and some unchartered ones.  (Alternatively, ICANN
> should require that all gTLDs have charters, but it should approve some
> gTLDs with charters that meaningfully limit the universe of people who can
> register in the gTLD, and some gTLDs with charters that do not impose any
> such limits.)
> 
> 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
> 	The issue of chartered gTLDs is tied up with the larger issue of how
> ICANN
> should select new gTLDs -- in particular, whether (a) ICANN itself should
> be the final arbiter of new gTLDs' names and charters, or (b) ICANN should
> simply select new registries and leave the choice of names and charters to
> them.  I think that at this point we can't avoid confronting the larger
> question of how ICANN should pick new TLDs in the initial rollout.
> (Actually, we're returning to the question; part of last summer's straw
> poll spoke to the same issue.  The results then were inconclusive.)
> Please
> select from among these possibilities:
> 
> 1. ICANN picks a set of registries according to objective criteria.
> (Alternatively, ICANN narrows the set of applicants using objective
> criteria, and chooses among the remaining applicants, if necessary, via
> lotteries or auctions).  Once chosen, registries pick their own gTLD names
> and associated charters (if any), subject to a process under which ICANN
> can resolve conflicts and can deem certain gTLD strings out of bounds.
> 
> 2. ICANN, through a working group or otherwise, identifies a set of gTLDs
> to be introduced in the initial rollout, and establishes names and
> charters
> for those new TLDs.  It solicits applications from would-be registries to
> run those TLDs, and picks the ones it deems best-suited or best-
> qualified.
> 
> 3. ICANN, through a working group or otherwise, identifies a set of gTLDs
> to be introduced in the initial rollout, and establishes names and
> charters
> for those new TLDs.  It solicits applications from would-be registries to
> run those TLDs, and picks those registries through a lottery or auction
> process.
> 
> 4. Each would-be registry proposing a new gTLD applies to the Names
> Council
> (or to ICANN directly) for approval; if the gTLD is to be bounded by a
> charter, the applicant must supply one.  If the application is approved,
> the applicant becomes the new registry, subject to its proposed charter.
> 
> 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).
> 
> 6. Other (please explain).

NOTICE:  This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone (404-881-7000) or by electronic mail (postmaster@alston.com), and delete this message and all copies and backups thereof.  Thank you.
=======================================================