[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] new WG on chartered/sponsored TLDs
Incidentally, you shouldn't cross-post...
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 03:23:24PM -0800, Rick H Wesson wrote:
> you are proposing almost what wg-c is supposed to do but altering your
> charter a bit. Why create a new working group, your proposal only shoots
> holes in wg-c, why not help work on some of the parrellel issues that you
> have in your charter in wg-c?
See the WG-C charter, at
It is explicitly tied to generic TLDs, not any other kind of TLDs.
> your charter ass-u-me-s that charters are a good thing, I believe wg-c has
> the carter to determine if charters should be used at all,
In my opinion, supported by the actual text of the WG-C charter, your
belief is incorrect. Not only is it incorrect, but what you propose is,
in my opinion, a demonstrated bad idea. WG-C is having *enough* trouble
coming to any conclusions about gTLDs, let alone take a several month
excursion into legal ramifications of charters.
> why not find
> out first if there is consensus on charters, a great place to ask about
> charters if to poll all the current ICANN approved registrars, after all
> the register constituency whould have to pass muster on any DNSO doument.
> I have worked with nearly half of the operational ICANN approved registers
> in consulting on operation issues, I suspect registrars would shoot down
> any type of chartered TLD.
Perhaps we should explore the issues before we ass-u-me what the
registrars will decide, eh? ;-)
> I suspect you are just tired of dealing with the off topic posts in wg-c
> and would prefer to get some work done on a narrowly focused topic.
I would definitely like to focus on a more narrow topic. Moreover,
> I believe the wg-c chair posted some fairly focused work items for the
> group, why not start there?
In my opinion WG-C is largely a failure, and is doomed to remain a
failure. I think we should close it as gracefully as possible, and get
on with things. All we have gotten out of it is a hotly contested
"consensus" that we should have new gTLDs. Precisely zero progress has
been made on anything else -- instead there has been a continual rehash
of the same issues that have been discussed for the past three years.
We don't even have a common set of terms.
A much better approach to WG-C, in my opinion, would have been for us to
start with a document that described options, instead of positions -- a
descriptive document that defined the common terms of reference, or a
reference model detailing different possible structures for the
ICANN-registry-registrar relationship. That didn't happen.
To be more precise about the problem, when Chris Ambler talks about a
"Registry" he actually means something totally different from what the
CORE documents refer to as a "registry". These underlying differences
in meaning terribly complicate the communications problem -- 50% of our
energy in WG-C has been spent in people talking past each other; the
other 50% is just disagreement. It would have taken real work to
describe all the possible models for what a "registry" could be, but
ittle work gets done in WG-C -- mostly we shout at each other until we
take a vote, and then we argue about the result.
So yes, I am frustrated with what goes on in WG-C :-)
I don't mean this as a criticism of Jon -- though there certainly are
things I wish he would have done differently. I think that hindsight
shows us that WG-C was poorly chartered. It has an awkward,
inappropriate, grandiose chunk of work for a work group. The job should
be divided up in a different way.
That's what I am trying to do. In general I think we would make much
more progress if we split work into smaller chunks...
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
email@example.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html