RE: [wg-c] WGC Position Paper

["Paul Stahura" <stahura@enom.com>]

Since we are talking about the registry choosing/not choosing the
TLD string, I thought I'd repost this exchange between myself
and Kent from last October.

Regards
Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Stahura [mailto:stahura@enom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 1999 10:47 AM
To: Kent Crispin; wg-c@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-c] WGC Position Paper


> On Wed, Oct 20, 1999 at 09:09:08AM -0700, Paul Stahura wrote:
> > A comment below on this WP...
> >
> > >
> > > Someone said: QUESTION TWO: HOW TO SELECT TLD STRINGS AND REGISTRIES?
> > >
> > > We believe that ICANN should decide on a set of new gTLD strings, and
> > > then solicit applications from would-be registries (or existing
> > > registries) to run those TLDs.  In picking the new gTLD strings, it
> > > should have the assistance of a standing Working Group who would make
> > > periodic proposals for new gTLDs.
> >
> > Paul said: I believe that the prospective registry should suggest the
TLD string
> > for which they wish to be a registry.  Having ICANN pick the TLD strings
> > beforehand and then asking for proposals is backwards.  What happens if
> > ICANN
> > does not pick ".mus" even though there is a group of museums
> > out there that wish to be a registry for that string? Does that museum
> > group just use one of the TLDs that ICANN *did* pick?
>
> Kent said: No -- the museum group suggests it to ICANN, and ICANN, if
ICANN
> thinks the string has merit, they put it in the list.

Paul said: I believe that determining if the string has merit would depend
on other factors, not just the dictionary definition of the string.  These
other factors would be in the registry proposal, wouldn't they?
How else would ICANN know them?
What happens if this museum group suggests a name but has no
operational ability, for instance?  Does ICANN say "hey, what a fantastic
TLD
string, we'll give all other interested museum groups the ability to try to
be the
registry for it"?  Or do they maybe consider some other TLD string,
that may be more benificial to the Internet?
IMO, the string and the registry concept/idea/goal/model/ability (whatever)
kinda go together.
Shouldn't ICANN have all the info when making a decision?

>
> > Paul said: What if someone has
> > a great idea for ".shoe", one that ICANN or this working group you
mention
> > has not thought of? Or, what if ICANN picks ".shoe" and
> > nobody has an excellent idea for it, or wishes to be a registry for it?
> > If we let the prospective registries include the TLD with their
> > applications,
> > then ICANN will get a larger variety from which to choose the best
> > TLD sting and registry idea combination.
>
> Kent said: If we let *anyone* suggest a name then ICANN will get even a
larger
> set to choose from.  No point in limiting the input to requests
> from registries.  Who knows, someone who has no interest in being a
> registry might come up with a brilliant name that any
> self-respecting registry would want.

Paul said: The string-set from which ICANN can choose is infinate, isn't it?
Heck, anyone on this list could probably suggest a couple of hundred
TLD strings.
What makes one better than the other is not only the definition of the
string but all the other factors.
What I'd like is for ICANN to get a large set of good string *and* registry
idea combinations.

>
> > Paul said: Therefore, I believe the TLD sting should be part of the
application
> > submitted by the
> > prospective registry.  Let the registries make the best case for the
> > TLD of their choosing, then ICANN can decide up or down
> > taking the entire application, including the reason why the
> > registry is asking for the particular TLD string, into account.
>
> Kent said: The problem isn't who suggests the name, it's in the idea that
the
> registry "owns" the string.

Paul said: I agree with you here.
I'm not suggesting the registry owns the string.  It would only
have a license (or whatever you call it) to register 2nd level
names under the TLD, wouldn't it?

>
> > Paul said: Maybe the WG you mention could advise ICANN regarding the
> > appropriateness, intellectual property, and other issues about the
> > TLD strings suggested in the applications from prospective registries.
>
> Kent said: But why on earth limit suggestions to just those by prospective
> registries?  That cuts the input down to an insignificant tiny number.

Paul said:
1) Each registry could suggest a number of TLD strings that they'd
like in order of preference.  ICANN picks the one they are assigned.
2) I doubt the number of prospective registries will turn out to be a tiny
number.

By your logic, ICANN should also come up with the registry
model (or pick any other attribute of the registry) for each of the
suggested names, because to let the
prospective registries do it would mean ICANN would get an
insignificant tiny number of suggestions there too.

Paul


>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain> Mark
Twain