[wg-c] where we go from here, redux

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

	Three items.

1. About three weeks ago, I posted a proposed list of policy issues that ICANN needs to resolve before new gTLDs can be deployed, and I asked:  "What items am I leaving off?  Are there other ways to describe these points that would be cleaner, more precise, or easier to understand?"  Nobody said anything.   If I don't hear anything within the next couple of days, I'll assume that the list has the approval of the working group -- so speak now if there's something on it we should change, or add.  If we've settled on a list, I'll try to put together a chart that sets out, for each of the questions, the positions expressed in the position papers and the comments.  I figure that might be helpful in allowing us to hammer out positions (or succinct explanations of our disagreements, or explanations of why we're staying mum) on the specific issues.  Here's the list again:

>>>>
> 1.  What process should ICANN use to select new gTLD registries?
> 2. What minimum qualifications must a gTLD registry have?  In particular,
> must it be a nonprofit entity?
> 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?)
> 4. What process should ICANN use to select new gTLD strings?  (By wording
> the question this way, I don't mean to foreclose the answer urged in
> Position Paper B that ICANN should leave the choice of new gTLDs to the new
> registries — I'm treating that as one possible selection mode.)
> 5. What characteristics must a new gTLD have?  In particular, must it have
> a "charter" reflecting a specialized purpose?
> 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?
> 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?
> 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.)
<<<<

2. As promised, I'm putting together a document now that explains the thinking (and sets out pros and cons) behind the conclusions that have already gained the support of WG "rough consensus," on the desirability of new gTLDs and the nature of the initial rollout, and I'll post it to the list for comments and redrafting.

3. Kent wrote, a few days ago, that it would have been useful for us to develop "a document that described options, instead of positions" -- in particular, a reference model "detailing different possible structures for the ICANN-registry-registrar relationship," and describing "all the possible models for what a 'registry' could be."  Sounds good to me.  Kent, would you be willing to serve on a small committee to develop such a document?  Are there any other volunteers?

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, WG-C
weinberg@msen.com