Re: [wg-c] STRAW POLL- responses

["Keith Gymer" <keith.gymer@btinternet.com>]

My votes are as follows

Question 1

1 - on the basis that, as Jonathan has observed, .com, .net and .org can be
said to have "charters" according to RFC1591 - the problem is that these
charters carried no enforcement obligation or mechanism, hence .com, .net
and .org are now effectively undifferentiated and unchartered.

I would also propose rewording of the options to make the requirement that
charters must "meaningfuly differentiate" rather than necessarily limit (eg.
I would support some sort of .nom for individuals, which would differentiate
on the basis that registrants were real persons using their own names rather
than corporate entities, for example, but which might otherwise have very
loose limits on who could register).

Question 2

1 -  with the substitution of "differentiate" for "limit".  Differentiation
is the key, as Philip Sheppard's principles rightly make clear.

Question 3

2 -

Keith Gymer
PAGE HARGRAVE
Manfield House
1 Southampton Street
London WC2R 0LR
T: +44 (0)20 7240 6933
F: +44 (0)20 7379 0268
Email: london@pagehargrave.co.uk
Web: www.pagehargrave.co.uk







----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Weinberg" <weinberg@mail.msen.com>
To: <wg-c@dnso.org>
Sent: 11 February 2000 20:30
Subject: [wg-c] STRAW POLL


Thanks, Kent, for getting me off my duff.  (For those not following the
discussion in ga, Kent Crispin has proposed on that list that the DNSO
establish a *new* working group, separate from wg-c, to discuss chartered
gTLDs.  He makes two arguments why a new working group would be
appropriate.  First, he suggests, chartered TLDs are outside the scope of
wg-c, b/c our own charter "is explicitly tied to generic TLDs, not any
other kind of TLDs."  Second, he gently urges that wg-c is not working, and
that we are more likely to see actual progress toward implementation of new
gTLDs by opening up another forum.)

I think Kent's first argument is simply wrong -- it is based on the notion
that a chartered TLD is not a "gTLD".  It's true that Kent circulated a
note last summer proposing that we define gTLD as "a TLD that has no
enforced criteria for the entities that may register in it," but his
proposal got no support.  Kent himself noted that his proposal "departs
from the rfc1591 definition."  RFC 1591 explicitly included all of EDU,
COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT in its list of "generic TLDs,"
notwithstanding that some of those are indisputably chartered.  That's
continued to be the generally accepted terminology.  So whatever reasons
there may be for establishing a new working group to look at sponsored or
chartered TLDs, the notion that proposals for establishing those domains
are outside of wg-c's charter isn't one of them.

I've got a lot of sympathy for Kent's second argument, and I understand
his frustration.  Here's an attempt to start doing something about it.  I
proposed a couple of weeks ago (and got no objection) that I would post to
wg-c "a straw poll on the issue of special-purpose or 'chartered' gTLDs:
That's an issue that got a great deal of attention on the list last month,
and I expect a straw poll would be helpful in helping us figure out where
members of the list stand."  So here goes.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, wg-c
weinberg@msen.com


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*:

1. All new gTLDs must have charters that meaningfully limit the universe of
people who can register in those gTLDs.

2. The name space should not include any new chartered gTLDs.
(Alternatively, if new gTLDs have charters, those charters may not place
meaningful limits on the universe of people who can register in the gTLD.)

3. ICANN, in selecting new gTLDs, should approve some chartered gTLDs and
some unchartered ones.  (Alternatively, ICANN should require that all gTLDs
have charters, but it should approve some gTLDs with charters that
meaningfully limit the universe of people who can register in the gTLD, and
some gTLDs with charters that do not impose any such limits.)

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 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.

2. The initial rollout should not include any new chartered gTLDs.
(Alternatively, any charters for new gTLDs may not place meaningful limits
on the universe of people who can register in the gTLD.)

3. ICANN, in selecting new gTLDs in the initial rollout, should approve
some chartered gTLDs and some unchartered ones.  (Alternatively, ICANN
should require that all gTLDs have charters, but it should approve some
gTLDs with charters that meaningfully limit the universe of people who can
register in the gTLD, and some gTLDs with charters that do not impose any
such limits.)

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:

1. ICANN picks a set of registries according to objective criteria.
(Alternatively, ICANN narrows the set of applicants using objective
criteria, and chooses among the remaining applicants, if necessary, via
lotteries or auctions).  Once chosen, registries pick their own gTLD names
and associated charters (if any), subject to a process under which ICANN
can resolve conflicts and can deem certain gTLD strings out of bounds.

2. ICANN, through a working group or otherwise, identifies a set of gTLDs
to be introduced in the initial rollout, and establishes names and charters
for those new TLDs.  It solicits applications from would-be registries to
run those TLDs, and picks the ones it deems best-suited or best- qualified.

3. ICANN, through a working group or otherwise, identifies a set of gTLDs
to be introduced in the initial rollout, and establishes names and charters
for those new TLDs.  It solicits applications from would-be registries to
run those TLDs, and picks those registries through a lottery or auction
process.

4. Each would-be registry proposing a new gTLD applies to the Names Council
(or to ICANN directly) for approval; if the gTLD is to be bounded by a
charter, the applicant must supply one.  If the application is approved,
the applicant becomes the new registry, subject to its proposed charter.

5. Each person proposing a new gTLD applies to the Names Council for the
formation of a working group devoted to that gTLD (or to several gTLDs).
The working group identifies a registry/sponsor, and generates a charter,
for its proposed new TLD.  If the gTLD is approved, then the entity
identified by the working group becomes the registry/sponsor.  The identity
of the registry operator may be set for competitive bid (and periodic
rebid).

6. Other (please explain).