[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-c] STRAW POLL
Q1: 4 But the prospective registry should specify the TLD string when
applying to ICANN to be a registry
Q2: 2
Q3: 6 like 1 but the registry informs ICANN of the TLD string (besides the
other information)
and ICANN uses that information (the TLD string) when selecting new
registries from the group of registry-wannabees.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Weinberg
> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 12:30 PM
> To: wg-c@dnso.org
> 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).