RE: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU

["Josh Elliott" <jelliott@tucows.com>]

As Jonathan stated, DOC still holds the keys to the root, but by October of
this year, the root is supposed to be transferred to ICANN.  ICANN has been
preparing for this transition for the last 9 months and is slowly but surely
progressing this issue with DOC.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Joseph Friedman
> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 7:20 PM
> To: Jonathan Weinberg
> Cc: Kent Crispin; wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU
>
>
> Is the assertion that the USG-DoC holds the keys to the root factually
> correct?  My understanding was that they gave these "keys" to ICANN upon
> its creation.
>
> --Joseph
>
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2000, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>
> > 	Two thoughts:
> >
> > 	1. Kent writes:
> > >It is not clear at this point that ICANN has the power to create a
> > >new TLD of any kind -- recall that it is DoC that currently holds the
> > >keys to the root, and that the DoC is vulnerable to many pressures that
> > >we don't see.
> > >That is, even if ICANN somehow approves the 10 you fondly dream about,
> > >that doesn't mean they will get in the root.  ICANN of course knows
> > >this, and is not going to generate a confrontation over the issue.
> >
> > 	I think this is quite mistaken.  I'm writing from the
> dubious perspective
> > of having worked closely with all of the USG players on this issue, most
> > especially Becky Burr, during my brief tenure as a bureaucrat
> in the run-up
> > to the Green and White papers.  I've seen the various pressures on DoC.
> > But I'm quite confident that if a new gTLD proposal runs the gauntlet of
> > the ICANN process, it will be approved by USG.  And I think that ICANN
> > knows that too.
> >
> > 	2. Kent points out that we haven't done much to develop the
> processes for
> > the introduction of new TLDs, and he's right  -- it's nice that
> we've got
> > recommendations about the need for new TLDs, and about the size of the
> > initial rollout, but that's only the first step. We still have before us
> > issues including:  What process should ICANN use to select new gTLD
> > registries? What minimum qualifications must a gTLD registry have?  In
> > particular, must it be a nonprofit entity? 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?) What process should ICANN use to
> select new gTLD
> > strings?  What characteristics must a new gTLD have?  In
> particular, must
> > it have a "charter" reflecting a specialized purpose? 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? What further conditions relating to
> > trademark-domain name issues, if any, should be satisfied
> before new gTLDs
> > are introduced?
> >
> > 	The fault for this, over the past few weeks, has been mine
> -- I've had the
> > job of moving these issues forward, and I haven't done it.  I've been
> > overwhelmed by other responsibilities,and I'm sorry.  I pledge to do
> > better.  I'm getting on a plane in a couple hours to attend a
> conference,
> > and I won't be back till Tuesday night, so my contributions
> until Wednesday
> > will be spotty.  After that, though, I belong to you, and I
> promise to try
> > to make up for lost time.  Again, you have my apologies, and a
> promise to
> > do better.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> >
> > Jonathan Weinberg
> > weinberg@msen.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 06:39 PM 2/4/00 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> > >On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 06:34:31PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
> > >> From: "Kent Crispin" <kent@songbird.com>
> > >> > In my opinion anyone that supports new TLDs in ANY form
> should support
> > >> > the .eu proposal.
> > >>
> > >> I understand this perspective. But the effective destruction of DNSO
> > process
> > >> would outweigh the benefits of breaking the logjam,
> particularly if it is
> > >> done under the subterfuge of a new ccTLD.
> > >
> > >There is no reason to think that this would destroy DNSO process.  On
> > >the contrary, I think it would create incentive to get real DNSO
> > >processes in place.
> > >
> > >> > It should be clear to anyone paying attention that
> > >> > if processes are being developed it is happening at such a
> slow rate
> > >> > that it isn't visible to the naked eye.  The gears are completely
> > >> > stuck, and we need movement to get them unstuck.
> > >>
> > >> In what sense are they stuck? We have overwhelming support in this WG
> > and in
> > >> the public comments to proceed with their creation.
> > >
> > >There has been strong support for the introduction of new TLDs since
> > >before the IAHC.
> > >
> > >> The Board has indicated
> > >> its willingness to discuss the issue at its impending
> meeting. The next
> > step
> > >> is to define more specific ways of implementing the
> introduction of the
> > >> first 10 new TLDs.
> > >
> > >Ie, the next step is to define the process.  Ie, we have made zero
> > >progress in the definition of process.
> > >
> > >> If ICANN's board decides to include .EU in that initial
> > >> batch, it wouldn't bother me a lot, as long as a procedure
> was defined to
> > >> continue adding them.
> > >
> > >Ie, ICANN's board will define the process, and the DNSO, and this WG,
> > >will have served the incredibly useful purpose of reporting to the
> > >Board that there is demand for new TLDs.
> > >
> > >> > But seriously -- it may take something with the political
> force of the EU
> > >> > to get *ANY* TLD through the system.
> > >>
> > >> That is true ONLY if the "political force" is channelled into the
> > >> development of an open, nondiscriminatory process. If CEC
> just manages to
> > >> win a special concession for itself, it sets a very bad precedent.
> > >
> > >Possibly, but it also creates the fact of a new TLD *approved through
> > >ICANN*.  Right now there are multiple forces arrayed against any new
> > >TLDs, including some TM interests, some of the ccTLD registries, and of
> > >course NSI.  Those forces have their greatest effect through the USG.
> > >It is not clear at this point that ICANN has the power to create a
> > >new TLD of any kind -- recall that it is DoC that currently holds the
> > >keys to the root, and that the DoC is vulnerable to many pressures that
> > >we don't see.
> > >
> > >That is, even if ICANN somehow approves the 10 you fondly dream about,
> > >that doesn't mean they will get in the root.  ICANN of course knows
> > >this, and is not going to generate a confrontation over the issue.  In
> > >my opinion it will take significant political pressure to get ICANN as
> > >a whole in position to even begin using some kind of process.  On the
> > >other hand, if ICANN *does* approve a new TLD, the pressure for
> > >processes will only intensify -- ICANN itself *needs* a process.
> > >
> > >> I would like to know more explicitly where you stand.
> > >> Are you conceding that ICANN's organic processes are useless?
> > >> Why are you giving up now?
> > >
> > >I'm not giving up anything.  My political awareness is different than
> > >yours.
> > >
> > >> The issue has not been passed to the NC, nor
> > >> formally considered by the Board. The WG has just completed
> the first phase
> > >> of its work. How can you say that we are "stuck?"
> > >
> > >Because we have accomplished nothing.  No processes will come out of
> > >the DNSO until it is clear that they are actually needed.
> > >
> > >--
> > >Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
> > >kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> > >
> > >
> >
>