[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-c] STRAW POLL
> WG-C STRAW POLL
>
> Please respond before midnight UTC following February 21, 2000.
>
>
> 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*:
Although I have some complaint with the way this answer is worded, here it
is;
> 1. All new gTLDs must have charters that meaningfully limit the
> universe of
> people who can register in those gTLDs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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*.
Did I state that I had problems with the way these were worded?
> 4. ICANN should simply select new registries and leave issues of names and
> charters (including whether to limit the universe of people who can
> register in the domain, and if so how) to the new registries.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 (please explain).
http://www.dnso.net/library/dnso-tld.mhsc-position.shtml