Re: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed

["Mark C. Langston" <mark@bitshift.org>]

On Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 10:22:55AM -0500, James Love wrote:
> 
>    If someone wants the "perfect" solution, then they should invent
> something else, because I would agree that mine has flaws.
> 
>    I think if you identified the groups that would decide, they would
> end up with decisions.  If the registrars and business constituency had
> to agree on 3 TLDs, they would probably come up with 3 they could live
> with.  Even with lots of blood on the floor.
> 
>    If the non-commerical domain holders could choose 3, they would
> become pretty active, and at the end of the day, 3 names would emerge. 
> Probably with some blood on the floor too, but what is the alternative
> -- to give the decision to the ICANN board?
> 

The alternative is not "please choose three TLDs that best serve your
groups' own fiscal needs/goals", as you've proposed.  I wouldn't be
surprised if they required that you allow them to choose the registry
to host the TLD as well.  You might as well say, "Here:  Each of the
groups on this list may administer X many TLDs for profit.  Enjoy."

This exercise isn't supposed to be about who can position themselves
to make the most money for themselves or their represented interests;
it's supposed to be about doing what's good for the Internet.

The constituencies aren't General Motors, and this isn't America.


>    For the voting proposal. ICANN does have a membership system. It is
> in place.  If there was a "ballot" on 3 TLDS, it would give people a
> reason to register as a member. It's open and free right now.  It may
> have flaws, but compared to what?

Actually, the membership system is NOT in place.  Nobody has received
the mailings that were supposed to follow the initial on-line registration,
becuase ICANN has not mailed them yet.  There is no At-Large membership,
period.  ICANN never followed through.



> 
>     The ballot proposal could include proposals, that included
> management systems.  If there were more than one management proposal,
> you could add the votes to make the "cut" and then have a run off on the
> different proposals.  Or you could just take the top 3 votes, including
> the proposed management structure.

The TLDs should be separate from the business model petitions.  There
is no reason whatsoever to tie them, and to do so may impart both an
unfair advantage as well as an illusion of 'ownership'.


-- 
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org
Systems & Network Admin
San Jose, CA