Re: [gtld-com] Regarding seeking public comment on the committee'sdraft
If the basic response is that bottom-up is the right approach,
then I agree you could make a pretty brief report.
The other material, though apparently out of scope, might be
of great interest to, eg. the IDN committee. Is there a useful
way to capture the out of scope material at least so it can
be made available to interested parties, even if on some informal
At 11:02 PM 4/15/2003 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Bruce and other Council members:
>Based on your reminder of the process, Bruce, it is now
>evident that the current gTLD committee has gotten
>out of hand and needs to be reminded of what it was asked
>to do by the Board.
>Here's what the Board requested in its 15 December 2002
>"the Board requests the GNSO to provide a recommendation
>[snip] on whether to structure the evolution of the generic
>top level namespace and, if so, how to do so."
>Now to put this request in context, the question about "structure"
>emerged directly from the Presidents Action plan and related
>discussions in Amsterdam, which raised the issue of a TLD name
>"taxonomy." The President's report posed basically two paths
>for future name space expansion: top-down structure, or
>bottom-up market driven. They asked for advice on which
>one GNSO preferred.
>It seems to me that the Board's question could be answered
>very simply and directly by item 7 of the proposed report,
>"7. Expansion of the gTLD namespace should be a bottom-up
>approach with names proposed by the interested parties to ICANN.
>There is no support for a pre-determined list of new names that
>putative registries would bid for. Expansion should be demand-driven.
>It should be sufficient that a viable demand is perceived by the name
>applicant and no objective test should be required."
>In other words, no structure, and therefore no need for
>a proposal as to "how to structure" the name space.
>I would, therefore, now move that we adopt paragraph 7
>as the report in its entirely, and consider our work finished.
>No one has objected to any aspect of that paragraph so far.
>Unless there are objections I don't know about, we have
>answered the Board's question. We are done.
>We were not asked for a comprehensive policy regarding
>name space expansion. Yet, if you look at the rest of the proposed
>report, you find that the Council is now discussing translations and
>transliterations of international domain names, performance bonds,
>sponsored vs. unsponsored, competition policy, policies for registry
>failure, and on and on.
>It's out of scope. These issues are far too complex to
>be settled in a few casual discussions, especially the issues
>Anyway, if we allow this task force to mutate into a vehicle for
>creating a comprehensive plan for name space expansion,
>then the current procedural plan is drastically inadequate, because it
>contains no requirement for public comment, not even an
>opportunity for open and public constituency comment.
>That should not happen.
>>>> "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> 04/14/03 07:17PM >>>
>>At the council meeting this week under agenda item 9, it may be
>>appropriate for the council to consider putting the current draft of
>>the committee's "advice" out for comment, before the GNSO council
>>formally ratifies the committee's advice in the 22 May 2003 meeting of the GNSO Council.
SVP Architecture & Technology
22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
Ashburn, VA 20147
703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
703 886 0047 fax