[wg-c] Tuesday's NC meeting

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

	Here is a brief summary of the portions of the Names Council meeting on
Tuesday most relevant to WG-C.  The NC began by taking two straw polls.  In
the first, the NC supported the establishment of new gTLDs.  (Vote tally:
YES: Poblete, Sheppard, Katoh, Swinehart, Cochetti, Hotta, Park, Kleiman,
Stubbs, Roberts, Kane, Chicoine, Carey.  ABSTAIN: Harris, Schneider, Aus
der Muhlen.  NOT PRESENT: Jennings, Amar.)

	In the second, the NC declined to support an initial rollout of 6-10 new
gTLDs followed by an evaluation period.  (Vote tally: YES: Hotta, Park,
Kleiman, Roberts, Carey.  NO: Sheppard, Swinehart, Cochetti, Harris,
Schneider, Stubbs, Kane, Aus der Muhlen.  ABSTAIN: Poblete, Katoh.  NOT
PRESENT: Jennings, Amar.)  Most of the NO voters explained that in their
view there was not consensus within the Internet community supporting 6-10.
 They emphasized (Roger Cochetti made this point repeatedly) that the
existence of rough consensus within WG-C, however measured, did not
necessarily establish consensus within the Internet community as a whole.

	The NC approved a resolution recommending "that a limited number of new
top-level domains be introduced initially and that the future introduction
of additional top-level domains be done only after careful evaluation of
the initial introduction."  Rather than endorsing any specific number of
new gTLDs in that initial rollout, the NC's resolution simply recommended
"introduction of new gTLDs in a measured and responsible manner, giving due
regard in the implementation of that policy to (a) promoting orderly
registration of names during the initial phases; (b) minimizing the use of
gTLDs to carry out infringements of intellectual property rights; and (c)
recognizing the need for ensuring user confidence in the technical
operation of the new TLD and the DNS as a whole."  The NC noted that "any
roll-out must not jeopardize the stability of the Internet, and assumes a
responsible process for introducing new gTLDs, which includes ensuring that
there is close coordination with organizations dealing with Internet
protocols and standards."  Within that framework, it continued:  "The Names
Council takes note of the fact that the WG C report indicates that several
types of domains should be considered in the initial introduction, these
being: fully open top-level domains, restricted and chartered top- level
domains with limited scope, non-commercial domains and personal domains.
Implementation should promote competition in the domain-name registration
business at the registry and registrar levels."  (An earlier version of
this last bit had read "The Names Council recognizes that the WG C report
indicates . . ."  The word "recognizes" was changed to "takes note of " at
the request of Phillip Shepard, who was concerned that "recognizes" might
imply endorsement.)

	Philip Sheppard urged that the resolution drafted by the NC explicitly
endorse the S/K principles.  Nobody else was enthusiastic about discussing
the principles at Tuesday's meeting.  Rather, the NC added this language to
its resolution: "Recognizing the Working Group C has recently approved
additional principles and that Working Group B's formal report was provided
to us yesterday, we advise the Board that we will be providing supplemental
recommendations in the near future."

	The last paragraph of the NC resolution states: "We would like to extend
our deep appreciation to the substantial number of participants who worked
so diligently in Working Groups B and C, and want to thank them for their
significant efforts in evaluating the issues that were referred to them."
(An earlier version had included the sentence: "We urge those participants
to continue to contribute their expertise in these issues as these matters
move on to consideration by the Board and implementation."  This was
deleted at the suggestion of Philip Sheppard, who pointed out that in his
view WG-C had completed its work.  Other NC members agreed that the NC
shouldn't affirmatively encourage us to keep going.)

	In fact, I figure on sending a note to the NC tomorrow recommending that
this WG be disbanded, for three reasons: [1] We've run out of time.  Under
the Board's resolution in Cairo, now that the NC has voted, it's the job of
ICANN staff to draw up "draft policies, draft implementation documents,
commentary, and statements of issues" on the introduction of new gTLDs so
that the Board can take action in Yokohama.  Louis Touton has advised the
NC that it needs to complete its recommendations within a month if ICANN
staff are to be able to take them fully into account.  That's simply not
enough time for us to reach further consensus recommendations and the NC to
request public comment on those points and vote them up or down.  [2] If we
were to do more work, I'm not sure on what basis we'd proceed.  The WG
reached a consensus in favor of 6-10; the NC has rejected it.  That's their
prerogative, but how would we proceed from here? [3] We're all tired.  (I
know I am.)  I frankly don't think we'd get a lot more done in any event.
It's time for different bodies to move these issues forward.

Jon