RE: [wg-c] STRAW POLL

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

Good points.

Someone needs to define "charter".  It is my view that all current TLDs have
a charter that is implied in RFC 1591.  Now, the charter may no longer be
followed (as with .org or .net), but it was outlined there.

While you may construe my point as borderline between options #3 and #4, I
am sticking to option #3.  Option #4 will never fly.  Remember that the
Board still has to vote on anything we come up with here whether we like it
or not.  #3 is the better alternative, and the beginning of a compromise
among the variety of interests on this list.

It is imperative that this group make some progress prior to Cairo.
Progress means compromise.  This goes for everyone.  If we keep rattling off
the same opinions over and over again, we are getting no where.  This
prolonged turmoil only leads to further delay in the creation of new gTLDs.
Can't we all just get along?  :-)

Thanks again for your valuable input.

Josh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Milton Mueller
> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2000 9:34 AM
> To: Philip Sheppard
> Cc: wg-c@dnso.org; Jonathan Weinberg
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] STRAW POLL
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>