Re: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

"Mark C. Langston" wrote:
> 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.


       I think Mark Langston's point is a good one.  I thought that if
the business/registrar constituency would agree on 3 names, it would
address both the user's interest and the registrar perspective. 

   In general, ICANN's structure is a problem.  It has sort of a reverse
conflict of interest policy.  The more you have a conflict, the more you
are put in charge of policy.  The DNSO has what, five business
constituencies and one non commercial constituency?  I think NSI must be
represented on what, all 5 business constituencies.  (I don't know how
to classify the ccTLDs).  

   Now if Mark has a plan for getting the DNSO to look after the public
interest, fine, I'm all ears.  I assume it is full of conflicts of
interest, and the best you can hope for is for various groups to come up
with something reasonable.  

    But I also think the noncommercial constituency is ok.  At the Cairo
meeting, it seemed to be fairly close on policy issues.  Maybe this is
too optimistic, but things seems fairly good at that meeting.  I think
it's become a stronger constituency with the efforts of the Markle and
Ford Foundations to support NGO involvement too.    And, I don't see a
big conflict with trademark owners in the NC group. 


> >    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.


    Well, ICANN has created the mechanism to become a member.  Of
course, having a real vote would require more follow through.  Is this
doable?  Of course it is.


> >     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'.


      I don't agree completely, although I would be flexible on this
point.  In some cases, the support for a TLD would depend upon how it
would be used.  For example, I would be much more supportive of a .union
TLD that was restricted or chartered, to an international labor
organization, and I would for having .union be handled (mishandled) like
.org.  But others might see it the otherway around.

      Kathy K's proposal for a .RTM TLD, available only to owners of
registered trademarks, wouldn't make sense if everyone could get it.  

    Also, the policy issue of business model or charter is at least as
important as the string itself, which often isn't that important by
itself (what was so special about .com or .org, except that they were
what people could actually get?).  

    The issue of "ownership" of a TLD is of course, pretty fundemental. 
But sometimes, possession is 9/10ths of the law.  (Ask NSI).  

   Jamie

=======================================================
James Love, Director           | http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology | mailto:love@cptech.org 
P.O. Box 19367                 | voice: 1.202.387.8030
Washington, DC 20036           | fax:   1.202.234.5176
=======================================================