[wg-c] deployment and implementation summary position paper D

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

Position paper D divides deployment and implementation of gTLDs in two 
phases -- the short term startup phase, and the long term. 

Short Term:
In the short term PPD advocates selection of 5-9 names for new open tlds. 
In PPD there is no proprietary connection between names and registries
whatsoever, and indeed, names can move from registry to registry, so,
therefore, the selection of names is not terribly critical, and could 
be done by ICANN's legal staff, using their best judgement concerning 
the legal impacts of particular name choices.

Simultaneously, ICANN should produce an RFP for candidates for 3-6
registry operators.  These proposals should describe in convincing
detail how the registry operator would implement efficient transfer of
registry data for a particular TLD from one registry to another.  ICANN 
will work with the proposals to come up with a set of 3-6 operators for 
registries that can meet the requirements.  Contracts would be let; the 
operators would implement their technology, and they would each be 
arbitrarily delegated one or more of the approved TLDs, though the 
delegation could be moved for load balancing or other purposes.

All these registries would be shared, and all ICANN-approved registrars 
would be authorized to register in the new TLDs.

Long Term:
The long term view primarily is concerned with a selection process for 
new names -- the registry selection process would stay much the same.

In the long term, PPD advocates that parties interested in the
delegation of a new TLD would petition the Names Council for formation
of a Working Group to develop a proposal for that TLD.  This is a
procedural step -- normally the NC would approve any reasonable request
for formation of a WG.  The WG would produce the concrete documents
specifying the rationale for the TLD; its charter (if any); its
sponsoring authority (if any); special contracts with registrars that
might be required; dispute resolution mechanisms; and so forth.  (The
sponsoring authority could be the party proposing the TLD, of course). 
The WG would provide the mechanism for public input into the creation of
the TLD; the documents would be given to the NC; posted for public
comment; and either returned to the WG or passed on to ICANN for ICANN's
consideration.  ICANN would approve or disapprove; and, if approved, the
TLD would be delegated to one of the current registries.  As more TLDs 
are approved, more contracts for registry operators could be let.

Note that the WG process is intended to be general:  in exceptional 
circumstances a particular registry could be delegated a particular 
TLD.  But a very good argument would have to be made that the single 
registry could meet the stability requirements specified in PPD.


-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain