[wg-c] WG Report: deadlines and draft language

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

Some key upcoming deadlines (as set out in
<http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc01/msg00877.html>):

Friday, March 17, at 5 pm UTC (noon EST): close of voting period on the
consensus call
Friday, March 17 at midnight UTC (7 pm EST): report to the NC is "frozen"
Monday, March 20 at midnight UTC (7 pm EST): close of voting period on the
report to the NC

The voting period on the consensus call is not yet completed.  I want to
start a conversation *now*, though, on what the report to the NC should say
on the topic of the consensus call, since the window in which to do *after*
the consensus call vote is over is extremely narrow.  My thinking at the
moment is that if nothing changes on the consensus call between now and
Friday at 5 pm UTC, it would make sense for the report to say something
like the language set out below.  Reactions?

	Also: If you have comments or suggestions relating to other sections of
the report, please post them ASAP.

	Also: so far as I'm aware, nobody has cast a vote so far on the Report to
the NC.  That's fine, I assume that people are waiting until the report is
frozen before voting.  I just want to remind folks that the window for
voting *after* the report is frozen is only three days; the short
turnaround is driven by the NC's need to get our report quickly so that
they, in turn, can solicit public comment and submit recommendations to the
Board.  So everyone who wants to vote on the report should make a special
effort to do so before the March 20 deadline.

Jon

--------------------------------------

Ongoing work

        Remaining questions before the working group include how the new
gTLDs deployed in the initial rollout, and their associated registries,
should be selected.  In initial discussion and straw polls on this issue,
working group members fell into several camps.  One group urged that ICANN
should first select new gTLD strings, and only then call for applications
from registries wishing to operate those TLDs.  A second group urged that
ICANN should select new gTLD registries on the basis of objective criteria,
and allow the registries to choose their own gTLDs in response to market
considerations.  A third group suggested that registries should apply
describing their proposed gTLDs, and that an ICANN body or process will
then make selections taking into account the characteristics of both the
registry and its proposed gTLD. The working group considered the third
option, viewed as a possible middle ground, as a consensus call, relating
only to the initial rollout of six to ten new gTLDs.

	Eleven "yes" votes were cast in that consensus call, and three "no" votes.
 It's the view of the co-chair that the response to the consensus call does
not demonstrate a rough consensus of the working group.  The most important
reason for that judgment is the small number of people who voted.  In
contrast to the 64 votes cast on the consensus call relating to the size of
the initial deployment (more than half of the membership of the WG at the
time), only 14 people -- 10% of the working group -- chose to cast a vote
on this matter.  Indeed, even some active participants in the discussion of
the consensus call did not cast formal votes.  This makes the vote less
reliable as a gauge of the views of the working group as a whole, and
suggests that the consensus call was premature.  Other factors making it
difficult to draw an unambiguous consensus from the vote include the facts
that some of those who voted "yes" added additional caveats conditioning
their support, and that voters may have had varying understandings as to
how the term "registry" in the consensus call should be understood, and
what an application would entail.

	It appears to be the sense of the working group, among both supporters and
opponents of the consensus call, that ICANN's selection process should be
procedurally regular and guided by objective selection criteria.  Further,
it appears to be the sense of the working group that the namespace should
have room for both limited-purpose gTLDs (which have a charter that
substantially limits who can register there) and general-purpose gTLDs.
The working group extensively discussed a set of eight "principles,"
drafted by Philip Sheppard (NC member, Business) and Kathryn Kleiman (NC
member, NCDNHC), against which applications for new TLDs might be judged.
The proposed principles, in their current iteration, incorporate the
keywords Certainty, Honesty, Differentiation, Competition, Diversity,
Semantics, Multiplicity and Simplicity.  However, the working group has not
so far achieved a consensus on the content or usefulness of the principles.