RE: [wg-c] STRAW POLL

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

First off, thanks Jonathan for getting this list working again.

My responses:

>
> 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 - I think all gTLDs should have charters.  In the case of .com, .net, and
.org, their charter should say.  Open to any registration worldwide.  There
is a demand in the marketplace for some more specifically chartered TLDs,
and while I wish the registries themsleves could take up these issues, I
don't see how it is possible.  If ICANN approved registry A, B, C and D, but
all three wanted to create .EXAMPLE, who gets it?  I think ICANN is the
appropriate system to make those decisions, and to insure that, we need to
contruct a system that is much more accountable than the current registrar
accreditation system used by ICANN.  I think there have been limited
complaints about the system, but as one who has seen the interworkings of
it, it does not have any accountability (except maybe the threat of a
lawsuit).

>
> 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 again.  If all new gTLDs have charters, then it is imperative that open
and restricted charters be tested.  There will most likely be the most
complications with restricted chraters than open ones.  There has to be a
mix.  If we create 8 new TLDs, then 1-2 should be restricted in nature, and
the others should probably be open.

>
>
> 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 - I'm not sure I like any of the rest of them.  I think there needs to be
a combination of some of the above.  In no way, do I want ICANN to give the
public a list of names that should be used in the roll-out phase (or any
phase for that matter).  That is giving ICANN more power than is necessary
in this process.

However, there should be objective criteria for the applicants, and these
criteria should be constructed by this WG.  These objective criteria should
include a charter (simply saying "open" would be a charter) as well as the
registry/registrar structure being proposed (the relationships for which
should already be in place and thought out) and the TLD name being
requested.  These criteria should be reviewed and rated by a group of people
that the community trusts.  Whether that is a combination of ICANN board,
ICANN staff, NC members, WG-C members, independent auditors, God only knows.
The 10 applicants with the highest ratings are selected for the testbed.

This process should be similar to the registrar accreditation process, where
the process selects the best qualified candidates for the "testbed", but the
same process is used for "post-testbed" applicants.  Applicants for the
testbed which are not selected are given an appeal process, and many of the
initial applicants are also approved for post-testbed operation as long as
the testbed actually works.

That is my rough thinking.  It is somewhere in between some of the options
listed.  Please let me know what you think (I'm sure many of you will not
hesitate to let me know).

Thanks.

Josh