Re: [wg-c] STRAW POLL

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

These comments address points made by Josh as well as Philip

Philip Sheppard wrote:

> 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.

Philip:This is a crucial issue for many of us. As a matter of market reality, no
business is going to run a registry if it cannot differentiate the service from
its competitors. What has made this a stumbling block for many of us is the
question whether ICANN defines the "charter" or the marketplace defines it. If
the charter is imposed top-down as a kind of contract with ICANN, then practical
issues concerning how the criteria are applied and enforced arise. So I think
you need to clarify your position. When you say "all TLDs must have charters"
what exactly do you mean, and where do those charters come from?

Josh:
It may be a bit confusing terminologically to say that *any* criterion
constitutes a "charter," even one like: "totally open." Most uses of the term in
this discussion have used "chartered" TLD to mean restrictions associated
semantically with the TLD string, such as .mil. There's nothing wrong with your
usage, in fact I think it's probably better to use the term the way you are than
the way it has been used. But again, it doesn't move the WG forward in the way
Jon Weinberg is trying to do. Jon is trying to define positions that are clearly
differentiated from each other and find out where people are on that map. If you
believe that
ANY tld by definition has a charter, and you select Option #3 under Question 1,
your actual position may not be that different from someone who selected Option
#4.

You (Josh) wrote:
"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? "

Any proponent of Option 4 knows that registries probably will submit mutually
exclusive applications. Those can be resolved in a number of ways: auctions,
lotteries, merit determinations, first come first served. I support rationing
methods that are non-discretionary (auctions, lotteries, FCFS) and oppose merit
determinations because it turns ICANN into a politically-driven regulatory body.