Re: [wg-review] 12 [STLD] special top level domains, report requested by Members of hte WG-review

["Chris McElroy" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

It should be obvious that a WG should be created specifically for this
purpose and I would definitely participate. This issue is extremely
important and many have worked very hard to make their views known and their
systems work only to run into a brick wall with the current procedures.
Like, some of you will love this, Joe Baptista, who I see gets suspended
from the discussion groups at times. Personally I like Joe and would invite
him to the table as well as Richard Sexton, Chris Ambler, Leah Gallegos, and
others.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jefsey Morfin" <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>
To: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, January 01, 2001 7:46 PM
Subject: [wg-review] 12 [STLD] special top level domains, report requested
by Members of hte WG-review


> Dear Chair,
> here are some of the topics collected from different sources concerning
the
> DNSO/STLD. They will be soon presented on http://stld.og before getting a
> sub-dnso site at http:/stld.dnso.org, as one of the seconded DNSO center
of
> interest.
>
>  From different posts on the wg-review ML I understand that some would
only
> to see debated the existence of constituencies and the GA. If
> you support that approach, I would request you to help us establishing a
> "wg-review-stld" mailing list.
>
> Jefsey
>
> List of questions:
>
> - the ICANN has adopted a new procedure in order to evaluate and accept
> TLDs. This procedure rises many questions (legality, legitimacy, terms and
> conditions, industrial property, duration of the propositions) which have
> never been discussed not voted. This should have been discussed within the
DNSO
>
> - ICANN Board has clearly stated at the GAC public meeting in MDR that the
> DNS system could accept one million of TLDs. Will the above procedure
apply
> to them all with 50 billions of US$ as an expected return for the ICANN or
> will they become more common. This is of the utmost importance for the
> STLDs: this should be discussed within the DNSO/STLD and any rate decrease
> policy be approved in common.
>
> - What is going to be the future attitude of the ICANN regarding the root,
> its management, the stability of the root service, the dissemination of
the
> root servers?  Would the sTLD and the ISP be directly associated?
>
> - one of Jon Postel position was "no conflict" in the TLD area. The WIPO
> and the GAC have declare TLD space as public. specialized TLDs and
> prospective sTLDs  should be given a space to dialog with non ICANN
> approved TLDs.
>
> - several ccTLDs compete with sTLDs. Would here not be a dialog area for
> them within the DNSO?
>
> - most of the propositions have adopted the existing UDRP. This procedure
> has not been defined in cooperation with any specialized TLD and does not
> take into account the specificities of charter and do not define a domain
> name as such and as part of the name space of a specialized TLD. This
> should have been discussed and acted upon in the DNSO/STLD group.
>
> - there should be test bed period for any new TLD before any decision of
> the ICANN. The terms and conditions of such a test bed period and the
> rights of the registrants should be agreed within the DNSO/STLD and
> approved by the BoD to permit a fair and protected try.
>
> - in spite of the FCC and ICANN warnings several registrars pre-register
> Domain Names in violation of the sTLDs sunrise plans. Actions should be
> studied at DNSO/STLD the ICANN could undertake in such cases.
>
> - novelties introduce new concepts in terms of usage of the DNS, hence of
> the definition of domain names and TLDs. This kind of topics should be
> discussed withe gTLDs and ccTLDs.
>
> - specialized TLDs may require not to disclose or to disclose more
> information about  their registrants. Special WhoIs should be develop and
> or new additions should be brought to the WhoIs.
>
> - Definition of the sTLDs and TLDs community Best Practice.
>
> - application of TLDs in local language?
>
> - definition of he nature and of the obligations/protection of the local
or
> private TLDs/
>
> - organization of a procedure of appeal against the  TLDs
>
> - creation of a site of all TLDs (ICANN and not ICANN proposed) to common
> advantage.
>
> - contract of registration of the domain names.
>
> - joint position concerting the TM, freespeach, copyrights, novation,
etc..
> and the DNS.
>
> - various types of TLDs management programs (existing, joint
specification,
> development sharing)
>
> - multilingual domain names
>
> - direct negotiation vs. published contribution to the ICANN.
>
>