[wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	As promised, here is a set of three consensus calls.  Please note that
these are *three separate items*, and that you need to vote on them
*separately*.  That is, it won't work to send in a response that says "I
vote yes," or "I vote no."  Rather, you need to vote yes or no on *each* of
the three items.  The deadline for voting is Monday, April 17 at 4 pm UTC
(6 pm in Brussels, noon in New York, 9 am in Los Angeles, 1 am the
following day in Tokyo).

	I want to urge *everyone* in the WG to weigh in on these three items.  If
you like ‘em, vote yes.  If you don't, vote no.  There's nothing wrong with
a proposed consensus item failing if the members of the WG, having decided
that it's a bad idea, vote against it.  But there's something very wrong
with an item failing because too few of the WG members bother to cast a
vote at all.

	Here are the three items.

PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE	

	The initial rollout should include a range of top level domains, from open
TLDs to restricted TLDs with more limited scope.


PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO

	Criteria for assessing a gTLD application, subject to current technical
constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should be based on all of
the following principles :

1. Meaning: An application for a TLD should explain the significance of the
proposed TLD string, and how the applicant contemplates that the new TLD
will be perceived by the relevant population of net users.  The application
may contemplate that the proposed TLD string will have its primary semantic
meaning in a language other than English.

2. Enforcement: An application for a TLD should explain the mechanism for
charter enforcement where relevant and desired.

3. Differentiation: The selection of a TLD string should not confuse net
users, and so TLDs should be clearly differentiated by the string and/or by
the marketing and functionality associated with the string.

4. Diversity: New TLDs are important to meet the needs of an expanding
Internet community.  They should serve both commercial and non-commercial
goals.

5. Honesty: A TLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for
malicious or criminal elements who wish to defraud net users.

6. Competition: The authorization process for new TLDs should not be used
as a means of protecting existing service providers from competition.

PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE

	WG-C recommends that the Names Council charter a working group to develop
policy regarding internationalized domain names using non-ASCII characters.

Jon