RE: [wg-c] Tuesday's NC meeting

[Josh Elliott <jelliott@tucows.com>]

Jon,

I personally would like to thank you for all of your hard work in moving
this WG along as best you could.  You did a great job, and I hope we can
continue to work together in the future.

Thanks.

Josh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Weinberg
> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 8:57 PM
> To: wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: [wg-c] Tuesday's NC meeting
>
>
> 	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