[wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "principles")

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

The Shepperd/Kleiman mail purports to set out criteria for the evaluation
of a gTLD registry operator application. Not defined within the criteria
is who the gTLD registry operator applicant is, nor who preforms the act
of applying the criteria to the applicant's application.

Clearly, a general evaluation mechanism with unspecified actors panders to
the set of interests which do not view specific evaluation with specified
actors as a desired outcome of the WG-C process, or who hold the view that
ICANN lacks the legal capacity to engage in discretionary conduct when the
WG-C process reaches some conclusion concerning the issues it was tasked
to undertake.

This approach, a general mechanism with no agency (affirmative ability to
act) to ICANN, was first advocated by the author of Position Paper B, and
effects a bar on progress on specific gTLD proposals until a general form,
whether cast as a "contract" or as "criteria", and argued in the abstract,
is approved, first by WG-C, then by the NC, the ICANN Board, and finally
by the US DoC.

The WG-C ballot of December identifies three broad camps in WG-C, two of
which voted "YES" on the ballot issue, and one which voted "NO". These camps
are:

	YES	co-signers of Position Papers A, D, and E (YES_A)
	YES	co-signers of Position Paper B (YES_B)
and
	NO	co-signers of Position Paper C (NO_C)

These three camps comprise three approximately equally sized blocks of
voting members of the working group as it then existed (membership was
frozen during the ballot period). The union of the two YES vote blocks
produced a narrow "win" for the ballot proposition (44 to 20, 2/3rds
supermajority, with 3 voting "abstain" and 43 not voting). Under the
process rules for WG-C, public comment on all the WG-C Position Papers 
was held, overlapping the ballot period (17 Nov to 10 Jan).

The results of the public comments were summarized in email to wg-c by
the working co-chair Jonathan Weinberg on 13 January. In his summary he
identified four classes of comments:

	Class I		focus on the creation of new gTLDs
	Class II	on the stated need to delay rollout until after the
			implementation of better trademark protections
	Class III	on Position Paper E
	Class IV	is miscellaneous

The summary revealed that the YES_B and NO_C camps were not able to
substantially expand their bases of support. Comments falling into the
first class were split between YES_A and YES_B. Comments falling into
the second class were substantially from members of WG-B not already
members of WG-C, or who identified themselves as associated with the
current ICANN DNSO Intellectual Property Constituency. Comments in the
third class formed 2/3rds of all comment offered (~200 of ~300). Position
Paper E is a specific instance of Position Paper A (and D).

The sum of the ballot and public comment periods experiences are that
WG-C is split into three camps of equal size, a situation not replicated
in either WG-B, nor in the subset of the general DNS-interested community 
which participated in the public comment period. Any two of these three
camps can block the advancement of the third under the 2/3rds supermajority
rule, and that both the YES_B and NO_C camps can agree (too few, too many)
that no new gTLDs be created now.

With the public comment tipping the uneasy balence of forces in WG-C to
the benefit of the YES_A camp prior to the Cairo ICANN meeting, where
WG-C is an agenda item, and taking momentary advantage of the absence of
the working co-chair, Mr. Sheppard (NO_C) and Ms. Kleiman (YES_B), are
revisiting Mr. Mueller's prior attempts at inserting a precondition to
the creation of the first gTLD in the DNS root during the ICANN period of
stewardship.

Two charter applications actually exist, the first is Position Paper E,
the second is the European Union's. Each involves a distinct process in
the ICANN system, with no precedent but merit and necessity to offer.
Shepperd/Kleiman haven't applied their criteria to concrete test charters
and they've declined to apply their criteria to these charters.


If anyone thinks I've stuck a fork into the wrong slice of toast (theirs),
do drop me a line. I'd like nothing better than to amend the above to show
that 6-10 isn't dead within WG-C, that either the NO_C camp has decided to
shift their ground enough to allow 6-10 to proceed, or that the YES_B camp
has decided that the NO_C camp aren't good long-term partners and want to
get some of the balls rolling, even if mine or Kent's or IAHC's or ...

My guess is that neither camp will make the smallest jump, and that the
nutty tiptoe number of specifics avoidance, whether .EU's or .NAA's or
any other concrete candidate or hypothetical, will continue to hold the
stage. It isn't useful, but it is decorative.

Cheers,
Eric