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

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> 	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.

I agree only that there ought to be thousands more top level domains.  
And since 6-10 is clearly closer to "thousands" than zero, I support that
much of the proposed consensus.  However, I do not agree that any new TLDs
should be restricted in any way except by the free and changible choice of
the operator of the TLD.  (I.e. I believe that any restriction ought to be
imposed and enforced by the operator, not externally by ICANN.)


> 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 :

Since I do not believe in constrained TLDs - to my mind they are too far
from "technical coordination" and their existance implies an enforcement
mechanism that would turn ICANN into an unaccountable international
policeman.  Thus, I do not agree with this item.


> 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.

While I believe in internationalized domain names and feel that they are
strongly needed, I believe that as between this group and the IETF, the
technical definitions and standardization of how they shall be
represented, what size limits shall be imposed, and how they shall be
mapped into the octets composing the labels of DNS names are matters
better left to the IETF.

While there *may* be policy issues regarding the deployment of
internationalized domain names and TLDs once the technical choices have
been made, I do not believe that the technical constraints are yet
known and hence policy would be made in a partial knowledge vacuum and
might be premature.

As such, I can't agree to this point in the abstract.  However, in the
interim, before there are clear technical decisions made by the IETF, I
might be open to agreement on more specific proposals that are independent
of how internationalized DNS names might be represented.  We also have
much to learn by watching how things develop in the Asian language DNS
systems that are currently being deployed in via non-ICANN root systems.

		--karl--