[wg-c] straw poll update, possible consensus calls, and our mission

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	Reminder:  The deadline for responding to the straw poll is midnight UTC
following Friday, Feb. 25.  That's 1 am Saturday morning Central European
Time, 7 pm TOMORROW on the U.S. East Coast, and 4 pm TOMORROW on the U.S.
West Coast.

	So far, 22 people have submitted ballots.  Some of the results, so far,
are pretty striking. 

(1) There is a strong majority in favor of the proposition that ICANN
should play some part in choosing the new gTLDs.  That is, a strong
majority of the respondents, so far, *reject* the proposition that ICANN
should choose registries wholly without regard to the gTLDs that the
registries propose to run, and then should allow the registries to pick
their own names and associated charters.

(2) There is a narrower majority in favor of the proposition that the
initiative, in selecting the new gTLDs, should come from the registries
themselves.  That is, a majority of the respondents, so far, *reject* the
proposition that ICANN should first select the new gTLDs, and only then
solicit applications from registries to operate those gTLDs.

	These two results, so far, suggest that the only recommendation that has
any chance of winning rough consensus in the WG is the one recently urged
by Sheppard and Mueller, under which registries apply describing their
proposed TLD, and an ICANN body or process makes selections taking into
account the characteristics of both the registry and its proposed TLD.
If these results hold up through the end of the voting period, I'll issue a
consensus call based on that proposal.  It's not the case that all, or even
most, of the straw poll voters so far have supported this result; the
ballots are too splintered.  But I think the votes so far make plain, as a
predictive matter, that *if* we are to reach consensus on this issue, this
proposal offers our only chance of doing so.

(3) There is also a strong majority, so far, in favor of the proposition
that the process should have room for both limited-purpose TLDs (which have
a charter that meaningfully limits who can register there) and
general-purpose TLDs (which have an "open" charter that does not
significantly restrict registration in that TLD, or, perhaps, have no
charter at all).  That is, a strong majority of the folks responding to
Questions One and Two answered either that ICANN should select such a mix
or that the registries should choose their own names and charters, which
would in turn ensure such a mix.  If this result holds up through the end
of the voting period, I'll issue a separate consensus call based on that
result.

	Keep those cards and letters coming.

	All this suggests that Philip may be exactly right when he suggests, as a
model for the initial rollout, that "the common ground for WG C [is a] set
of 6-10 . . . proposed by putative Registries."  I think we're not
currently at the point where the common ground includes an understanding
that the proposals be "tested against the principles."  So far at least, it
seems to me that the principles have drawn more negative comments on this
list than positive ones.  I can't rule out, though, that that situation
might change.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, WG-C
weinberg@msen.com