Re: [wg-c] STRAW POLL

[Harold Feld <hfeld@mediaaccess.org>]

Jonathan Weinberg wrote:

> Please respond before midnight UTC following February 21, 2000.

(UTC?)

>
>
> 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*:
>
>
> 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.)
>

I do not see a conflict between this and #4, but I need to pick one.  It is possible
to do
"set asides" for chartered TLDs without "chosing a business model."  In any event,
I suspect we will see a mixture in any open application process.

Since I'd still like to see a set aside for an individual or other "public space" TLD,

I have to go with #3.

>
> 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*.
>
>
> 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.)
>

As above.  I'd like to see a decent mix in the opening "testbed" period.


> 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:
>
>
> 6. Other (please explain).

I would favor a mixed approach, in which ICANN sets aside
space for individual or other "public space" TLDs.  *These* could
be decided by comparative evaluations or other means.  By contrast,
"commercial" TLDs (commercial is in "" because I do not mean they must be
run for profit, but that they do not fall into the reserved "non-commercial" public
space catagory).

On the whole, I think the more objective the criteria, the better for everyone.
I am not wild about auctions, unless they have associated bidding credits
for small businesses and minority ownership (are my public interest
roots showing yet?).  In addition, auctions should not be used unless
ICANN is willing to commit to bringing new TLDs (over and above
the initial 6-10) online in some definite period of time.  Otherwise,
the uncertainty as to the value of the new TLDs will drive up cost
enormously (or potentially drive down cost, as no one will know how to accurately
value the franchise).

HArold