Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALL -- selecting the gTLDs in the initial rollout

[Eric Brunner <brunner@world.std.com>]

On Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 06:28:52PM -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>                                             ... suggest the only approach
> with a chance of winning rough consensus in the WG for selecting the gTLDs
> in the initial rollout is ...
 
	Registries would apply describing their proposed TLD, and an
	ICANN body or process would make selections taking into account
	the characteristics of both the registry and its proposed TLD.  

1. Under the ICANN By-Laws and within the existing Accredited Constituencies
of the DNSO, at present, "registries" are the following set of entities:

	o Network Solutions Inc., Don Telage the contact of record
	  <dont@netsol.com>
and
	o some number of ccTLD registries, Dennis Jennings and Patricio
	  Poblete the contacts of record
	  <Dennis.Jennings@ucd.ie, ppoblete@nic.cl>

2. The proposal removes, albeit for the initial cohort of new gTLDs only,
the capacity for initiating the procedure for the creation of new gTLD(s)
from the ICANN Board or their designates other than "registries".

3. The proposal simply restates without clarification the charter of WG-C
when reference is made to a "body or process" and "characteristics" of the
registry operator and the registry charter.

For these three reasons I oppose the proposal.

i. NSI has not indicated an interest in creating a SLD consistent with
Position Paper E, nor any SLD organized or conceived as a human or civil
right rather than as a right to market. There is little or nothing to
suggest that NSI would operate differently if given the delegation(s)
to operate new TLDs.

ii. The ICANN Board, through the agency of its subordinate body, the DNSO
Names Council, may consider directly the specific proposition expressed in
Position Paper E, and the general proposition that it may act in opposition
to the interests of current holders of ICANN TLD delegations.

iii. The difficult issues were identified in 1997, in the IAHC process.
A short reminder: access model (shared vs not), cost recovery model
(non-profit or for-profit), just to name two.

WG-C could be re-chartered excluding the substantive questions of policy,
or the chartering authority can conclude that on its own based upon the
choice by WG-C to offer no specific recommendations except vague excerpts
from the DoC White Paper.

I join with Kent Crispin and urge the participants in WG-C to reject this
proposition.

Cheers,
Eric