Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

Hi Jon,
	Thanks for your detailed explanation. In short, we did NOT reach
consensus on this issue. Just for the record.

Yours, John Broomfield.

> At 03:35 PM 4/18/00 -0400, John Charles Broomfield wrote:
> >To the chair:
> >	Have we reached consensus as William states it? Ie consensus on
> >running gTLDs (as in generic, not as in chartered) in different ways? If
> >so, could I have the wording and the date when we (WG-C) reached this
> >agreement?
> >	AFAIK it is still being discussed.
> >	Also, AFAIK, a large amount of the members of this workgroup would
> >not settle for a gTLD to be run in any other way except shared, which is=
>  why
> >I find strange that William affirms this.
> >[snip]
> 
> 	We did a straw poll last August addressing some of these these issues.
> The WG was smaller then, and only 25 people participated.  (In the poll, I
> used "gTLD" to include any top-level domain other than a ccTLD -- both TLDs
> that have a charter limiting registrations and those that don't.)
> 
> 	On the issue of whether gTLDs should be for-profit or non-profit, eleven
> people voted that *all* registries should be run on a not-for-profit,
> cost-recovery basis.  Fourteen people voted that *some* registries should
> be run on a not-for-profit, cost-recovery basis, and that others could be
> run on a for-profit basis.  We had a lot of discussion on the issue
> subsequently, and it was addressed in most of the position papers, but we
> never reached a consensus position.
> 
> 	On the issue of sharing, twelve people voted for "option one": that all
> gTLDs must be shared (that is, open to competitive registrars).  Eight
> voted for "option two": that ICANN should presumptively require that gTLDs
> be shared, but allow exceptions in particular cases.  Five voted for
> "option three": that ICANN should not require registries to support
> competitive registrars in any of their TLDs, although registries might
> independently choose to do so.  In my own summary, I wrote at the time:
> "These results seem to me striking.  On the one hand, 80% of those
> participating voted for options one or two -- that is, that ICANN should
> impose *some* sharing requirement.  On the other hand, a majority of those
> voting indicated that there should be room for non-shared TLDs as well.
> This suggests to me that the WG may well be able to find rough consensus
> around option two as a compromise position (or, at the very least, that
> *if* the WG is able to find rough consensus, it will be around option two).
>  . . . [T]he numbers suggest a route to a resolution =97 it seems likely tha=
> t
> option two can provide a workable compromise, consensus, position."  In
> fact, though, we didn't seize the opportunity to forge consensus on this
> issue at the time.
> 
> Jon
>