Re: [wg-c] Working Group C agenda

["Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>]

----- Original Message -----
>From: "Jonathan Weinberg" <weinberg@mail.msen.com>
>

>The first thing I'd like us to take care of is some resolution on the
Sheppard/Kleiman >principles,
><http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc01/msg01436.html>.
>
>
>[1] Is it useful, as a general matter, for us to agree on some meaningful
>set of principles to guide the relevant ICANN body or process in selecting
>new TLDs or TLD registry/pairs?

Yes.

>[2] Assuming that it would be desirable for the WG to agree on some
>meaningful set of principles, is this set the right one?  I can think of
>two classes of objections to the current iteration of the principles.  The
>first class would consist of arguments that the principles incorporate
>undesirable policy choices.

I think the principles incorporate a very good set of policy choices. They
are, of course, vague and there is some tension between some of them, but
they are as close as this group is going to get to an agreement.

>The second class would consist of arguments
>that the principles are too general, and won't meaningfully guide (much
>less constrain) the decisionmaker.

As noted before, selecting 10 registries out of the hundreds if not
thousands of possible applications that would conform to the principles
gives ICANN a huge amount of discretion.  No definition of principles, no
matter how well drafted, is going to change that. However, the principles
are meaningful. They also represent a carefully crafted middle ground
between various stakeholders. It is useful to have the WG go on record with
them. The principles will be incorporated into ICANN's records, reported in
the press, discussed by the NC and the ICANN Board in voting on the issue,
and so on.