[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[wg-c] Restatement of wg-c discussion



I asked the people who read the email to summarise what they knew about wg-c.
Appreciate any corrections.
Mr brummer's excellent summaries appear too technical.

Summary:

1. There is so much traffic here that one risks collision with one of the parked cars.
2. Mr Rutkowski's masterly misstatement of the ambit of the wg-c mission for renegotiation of .int leads to the 'beautiful' confusion beloved of many good businessmen..

3. Naive take on the wg-c debate:

1.Should there be new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs)?  A: YES, agreed
If yes:
How many? A: initial 6-10 agreed
Which?  A: (beyond competence of wg-c to resolve both procedure and substantive candidates, risks of conflict of interest)
At which speed should they be deployed and in which order?  A: reasonably i.e. over next few years, order TBD
What should be the mechanism for developing new gTLDs after all these are deployed. A: mixed, no consensus view
Should each new gTLD have a specific charter? A: not necessarily

2.What should the registration and data maintenance process and regulation be?. A: under discussion

3.How should the new gTLDs be managed?  A: under discussion
What should the registry(ies) be like?  A: under discussion
Is it mandatory to have a new registry(ies)?  A: under discussion
Why?
Does the structure proposed comply with worldwide concepts of anti-trust law?  A: there is no worldwide concept of anti-trust law, quite the reverse. Question should be phrased as to whether compatible with worldwide concepts of sovereignty.
What information should be made public by the registry(ies) and how?  A: under discussion
Obligations of the registry(ies). A: under discussion

(please note this does not represent my personal opinions)

MM