RE: From Jonathan Weinberg, [Re: [council] Endorsement of final WG Cwork]

[Theresa Swinehart <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>]

Jonathan,

You raise some very important points -- thank you for your note and
arranging that it be forwarded to the NC.

I've reviewed the principals and have to say that I find them somewhat
ambiguous and unclear - i.e., they can be interpreted to mean a wide range
of things and it is not clear what kind of effect they would have. This,
combined with Jonathan's note and his insight into the wg's discussion on
the principles, it's my view that the NC should not do anything specifically
on these principles. We've done our part by passing the resolution which
takes note of the WG-C recommendations, and forwarded these to the ICANN
staff.

Theresa


-----Original Message-----
From:	owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org] On Behalf Of
Elisabeth Porteneuve
Sent:	Wednesday, April 26, 2000 1:37 PM
To:	council@dnso.org
Cc:	weinberg@mail.msen.com
Subject:	From Jonathan Weinberg, [Re: [council] Endorsement of final WG C
work]


 From Jonathan Weinberg, [Re: [council] Endorsement of final WG C work]

---------------------------------------

 	I want to bring one point to the attention of the NC, in connection with
Philip's message earlier today:  Working Group C on April 17 approved *two*
rough consensus points.  The first consensus point was our statement that
"[t]he initial rollout should include a range of top level domains, from
open TLDs to restricted TLDs with more limited scope."  In its April 18
resolution, the Names Council "took note" of this consensus point, but did
not endorse it.  The second consensus point was the set of principles
Philip refers to.

	During our discussions, some members of the working group objected that
the Sheppard principles could be read as hostile to open domains.  This was
an important objection, because the overwhelming majority of the working
group members who participated in the debate favored the deployment of at
least some open domains.  The vote tally on "include a range of top level
domains, from open TLDs to restricted TLDs with more limited scope" was
50-18, and at least six of the 18 voted NO because they believed that the
initial rollout should include *only* open TLDs.  Others, including Philip,
answered that the principles were not in fact hostile to open domains.  In
the end, I think, many WG members concluded that the fact that we were
overwhelmingly approving "include . . . open TLDs" would dissuade outsiders
from (incorrectly) interpreting the principles in a manner hostile to open
domains.  This helped enable our 46-21 approval of the principles.

	To the extent that the Names Council takes up only one piece of our April
17 package, it may wish to keep in mind the effect of any particular
wording on the issue of open TLDs.  Again, for the record, the overwhelming
view of the WG was that open TLDs *should* be included in the initial
deployment.  Because the April 18 resolution merely "took note of" our
recommendation, the NC has not itself spoken on this issue.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, WG-C
weinberg@msen.com


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------

On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 09:28:55 +0200 Philip Sheppard wrote:

>Council,
>In the NC statement on new gTLDs we made the reference:
>"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. "
>
>
>Working group C considered a set of proposals based on an original draft
>submitted by myself and Kathy Kleiman.  The principles are broad criteria
>for choosing new TLDs. (Specific guidelines based on them will need to be
>worked out in due course - they are a starting point.) They try to
>encapsulate the concepts of fairness, competition and diversity that
>underline many of the more specific options debated in the working groups.
>WG C voted on these and achieved a consensus in support. I would therefore
>like to propose the following statement is endorsed by the NC and sent to
>the ICANN Board as supplemental recommendations.
>
>Please indicate your support by a reply to the list.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>-----
>DNSO Names Council Supplemental Statement on new TLDs
>
>Further to its preliminary statement, the Names Council recommends to the
>ICANN Board that it adopt criteria for assessing a TLD application or
>proposal.
>These criteria subject to current technical constraints and evolving
>technical opportunities, should be based on all of the following
principles:
>
>1. Meaning: An application for a TLD should explain the significance of the
>proposed TLD string, and how the applicant contemplates that the new TLD
>will be perceived by the relevant population of net users.  The application
>may contemplate that the proposed TLD string will have its primary semantic
>meaning in a language other than English.
>
>2. Enforcement: An application for a TLD should explain the mechanism for
>charter enforcement where relevant and desired.
>
>3. Differentiation: The selection of a TLD string should not confuse net
>users, and so TLDs should be clearly differentiated by the string and/or by
>the marketing and functionality associated with the string.
>
>4. Diversity: New TLDs are important to meet the needs of an expanding
>Internet community.  They should serve both commercial and non-commercial
>goals.
>
>5. Honesty: A TLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for
>malicious or criminal elements who wish to defraud net users.
>
>6. Competition: The authorization process for new TLDs should not be used
>as a means of protecting existing service providers from competition.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------