[wg-c] about the consensus call

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

	Kent argues that one of the difficulties with the consensus-call proposal
is that it precludes ICANN from considering a proposal for a new gTLD
charter/string unless that proposal comes from somebody actually seeking to
run that TLD.  A good idea for a new TLD, he urges, could indeed come from
just about anybody, and it's arbitrary to say that ICANN can't consider
such a proposal unless it comes from a would-be "registry."

	I think the consensus-call approach has two strengths.  First, I think the
focus on an *application* process, rather than a process in which ICANN
simply assembles a list of potential TLDs proposed by the world at large
and picks its favorites, will induce ICANN to proceed with greater
procedural regularity, and to feel a greater obligation to justify the
choices it makes.  Second, the consensus call attempts to incorporate the
virtures of compromise, by bridging the gap between two positions
well-represented in the WG.  The first camp urges that ICANN should select
new gTLD charters/strings at the outset, as a pure policy matter, before
operational concerns come into play.  As far as the initial rollout is
concerned, thus, ICANN should begin by selecting 6-10 gTLD strings, and
only afterwards call for applications by some set of registries (perhaps
fewer than the number of new TLDs ) to run them.  The second camp, OTOH,
views this approach as uncomfortably top-down.  They urge that actual
registry operators are better equipped than is the ICANN Board to determine
what new gTLDs consumers actually want, and that the true competitive spur
comes from the presence in the marketplace of different *registries,* not
merely different gTLD strings.  ICANN, they argue, should limit its role to
operational vetting of would- be registries.  The consensus call draws from
the first camp the basic position that it should be ICANN, rather than
private registries, choosing the identity of the new TLDs in the initial
rollout, and draws from the second camp the notion that a regime in which
the initiative for new gTLDs comes from the registries that actually want
to run them will best foster the innovation, branding, & provision of
value-added services that competitive registries can offer. 
 
	I'm coming to wonder, though, whether this vision is limited in a way that
I didn't focus on initially.  The advantages that I suggest above for a
system in which the initiative comes from applicant registries come into
play in connection with *commercial* TLDs.  They're got less value in
connection with noncommercial TLDs such as Jamie's .SUCKS.  (I think
there's less to the recent discussion of who is a "registry" than meets the
eye.  If Jamie Love and XYZ Registry agree on a proposal that incorporates
operational responsibility for XYZ and policy authority for Jamie, then
they can file the proposal jointly, and at least one of those folks is
plainly a "registry" for this purpose.  But we're still left with Kent's
question whether there's any *value* to requiring Jamie to establish such a
relationship in advance.)  Harold Feld, a while ago on this list, suggested
that ICANN might use entirely different selection mechanisms for commercial
and noncommercial TLDs.  I'm wondering whether that would indeed be a
superior approach.

	Another point: Several people, while casting votes in favor of the
proposal, have commented that the proposal is acceptable to them only if
the selection process is bounded by meaningful objective criteria, so that
ICANN can't exercise wholly unbounded discretion in picking the 6-10.  That
sounds right to me: It seems to me that that concern is important.  At the
same time, as Eric has recently pointed out (and Kent has emphasized
previously), we haven't in fact made much progress in developing criteria
that meaningfully limit ICANN's discretion.  I think the Sheppard/Kleiman
principles -- even if we were all agreed on their content -- are too
general to play that role.  And I'm doubtful that we'll get too far in the
couple of days before I have to finalize the current report to the NC.

	Reactions?  Am I right in these late-night assessments, or is the
consensus call proposal a better one than I'm giving it credit for just
now?  If I am right, is there a good (and quick) way to address (some of)
those concerns?

Jon