RE: [wg-c] STRAW POLL

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

This posting strikes me as the most sensible and thought out articulation of
a workable scheme yet posted on this site on this issue, providing the
elements of stability, predictability, and standards which are needed to
promote safety in the gTLD expansion process. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Philip Sheppard [SMTP:philip.sheppard@aim.be]
> Sent:	Monday, February 14, 2000 10:48 AM
> To:	wg-c@dnso.org; Jonathan Weinberg
> Subject:	Re: [wg-c] STRAW POLL
> 
> WG-C STRAW POLL
> 
> Here follows replies of Philip Sheppard AIM.
> 
> 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.
> 
> BUT TAKE HEED  Limit is not the right descriptive. A charter need not be a
> restriction! The key is not limitation but differentiation. Dot biz could
> be
> fine is it can differentiate itself from dot com. EG: It may wish to be
> for
> registered business only or for businesses who wish to trade across
> national
> borders.
> (See answer to Q3 for more on differentiation.)
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> BUT SEE ABOVE. The concept that 6-10 is about right is flawed.
> 
> 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
> The Names Council and ICANN must establish principles for domain names (a
> little like the criteria option you had). I propose the following
> principles/criteria (also under discussion in WG B and co-authored by
> myself
> and Kathy Kleiman):
> 1. Trust - a gTLD should give the net user confidence that it stands for
> what it purports to stand for.
> 2. Semantics - a gTLD should be meaningful in a language with a
> significant
> number of net users.
> 3. Findability - a gTLD should assist a net user to find a particular
> domain
> name.
> 4. Differentiation - a gTLD should differentiate from all other gTLDs so
> as
> not to confuse net users.
> 5. Honesty - a gTLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for
> malicious or criminal elements who wish to defraud net users.
> 6. Simplicity - a gTLD should not impose an overly bureaucratic procedure
> on
> a registry.
> 7. Competition - new gTLDs should foster competition in the domain name
> space.
> 8. Diversity - new gTLDs should foster the expression of views, both
> commercial and non-commercial.
> 9. Multiplicity - new gTLDs should become available as needed to meet the
> needs of an expanding Internet community.
> 
> THEN, a registry proposes a new gTLD and the NC judges it against the
> above
> principles. If it passes it happens.
> This leads to the market proposing names it wants but there is a
> first-mover
> advantage as new names will exclude others. For example: If dot cars was
> accepted for "everything to do with automobiles" then another party
> wanting
> dot autos for " everything to do with automobiles" might not be accepted
> unless they offered something to differentiate.
> 
> Philip Sheppard
> 
> 

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.
=======================================================