From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #4 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Saturday, February 5 2000 Volume 01 : Number 004 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 11:58:16 -0000 From: "Keith Gymer" Subject: Posting to the list is enough! Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU Folks I posted my original notice to the wg-c list, which I do read as it has yet to be wrecked (unlike ga-dnso), so please post your comments just to the wg-c list - you don't need to copy me separately as well. This should halve the number of emails I've been getting! Thanks Keith ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 06:56:55 -0500 From: "A.M. Rutkowski" Subject: Re: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs At 04:33 AM 2/4/00 , you wrote: >I could see clear benefits for registrants in a .eu TLD. >It is a regional identification for all those who might wish to identify >their on-line presence as European. >Depending on how "open" the registry is going to be, it could be a TLD for >individuals and companies from EU member states, but also from non-members >states, as long as they wish to identify their Domain as European. Hi Joop, As you note, the EU domain is being proffered in the paper to provide brand identity value just like COM. The CEC seeks to differentiate EU in the marketplace just like any other proposed new gTLD. Indeed, it is remarkable how the CEC now characterizes COM as the "North American domain" and that EU is now being proffered as a competitive alternative to COM. Good. Under these circumstances, after ardently seeking to place the North American domain under a well regulated regime, one would presume that the EU domain would be subject to same requirements regime. However, the CEC appears to suggest it is entirely autonomous to do whatever it wishes with respect to defining and allotting registrants, registries and registrars. Seems rather discriminatory and unfair to me. - --tony ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 07:04:35 -0500 From: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." Subject: RE: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU (I may have sent my comment off-list.) The EU is proposing that it be authorized to operate the .eu TLD as an additional ccTLD. I am wondering whether the EU is attempting to leapfrog the DNSO and this Working Group's deliberations on gTLDs by claiming to propose a ccTLD. It seems to me that the EC Treaty would not sufficiently restrict the territorial reach of proposed TLD. Consequently, the registry for the .eu TLD would be able to operate as a gTLD under the limited constraints of ccTLD registries. If the ICANN board permits this, that would be an abundantly clear indication that we are laboring in vain. ICANN should cease approving additional ccTLDs until the DNSO finishes its work; otherwise, I suggest we issue a report indicating that the Board's practice has subverted the consensus-building process upon which ICANN was presumably established, and that the continued continued consideration of establishing ccTLDs has rendered the DNSO superfluous. Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. www.cyberspaces.org rod@cyberspaces.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 09:51:49 -0500 (EST) From: Joseph Friedman Subject: Re: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, A.M. Rutkowski wrote: > At 04:33 AM 2/4/00 , you wrote: > >I could see clear benefits for registrants in a .eu TLD. > >It is a regional identification for all those who might wish to identify > >their on-line presence as European. > >Depending on how "open" the registry is going to be, it could be a TLD for > >individuals and companies from EU member states, but also from non-members > >states, as long as they wish to identify their Domain as European. > > Hi Joop, > > As you note, the EU domain is being proffered in the > paper to provide brand identity value just like COM. > The CEC seeks to differentiate EU in the marketplace > just like any other proposed new gTLD. Indeed, it is > remarkable how the CEC now characterizes COM as the > "North American domain" and that EU is now being proffered > as a competitive alternative to COM. Good. > > Under these circumstances, after ardently seeking to > place the North American domain under a well regulated > regime, one would presume that the EU domain would be > subject to same requirements regime. However, the CEC > appears to suggest it is entirely autonomous to do > whatever it wishes with respect to defining and allotting > registrants, registries and registrars. > > Seems rather discriminatory and unfair to me. > > --tony A fair compromise on this .EU issue may be to create a .EUR under similar arrangements .COM/.NET.ORG is handles (multiple registrars, ICANN accredation, etc.) - --Joseph ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 07:14:36 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >A fair compromise on this .EU issue may be to create a .EUR under >similar arrangements .COM/.NET.ORG is handles (multiple registrars, >ICANN >accredation, etc.) Excellent suggestion. They should get in line behind existing applications like .web, .per and others. Christopher - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use Comment: Signed and Encrypted EMail preferred. Fnord. iQA/AwUBOJrs3MkU7GoO9fgUEQIv9wCfSlygdjS5A80Pm4UU/HqsvhjlEmsAnAlu lHKFmW662R1r3G2tn6gR2e84 =H8ki - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 18:34:31 -0500 From: "Milton Mueller" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kent Crispin" > In my opinion anyone that supports new TLDs in ANY form should support > the .eu proposal. I understand this perspective. But the effective destruction of DNSO process would outweigh the benefits of breaking the logjam, particularly if it is done under the subterfuge of a new ccTLD. > It should be clear to anyone paying attention that > if processes are being developed it is happening at such a slow rate > that it isn't visible to the naked eye. The gears are completely > stuck, and we need movement to get them unstuck. In what sense are they stuck? We have overwhelming support in this WG and in the public comments to proceed with their creation. The Board has indicated its willingness to discuss the issue at its impending meeting. The next step is to define more specific ways of implementing the introduction of the first 10 new TLDs. If ICANN's board decides to include .EU in that initial batch, it wouldn't bother me a lot, as long as a procedure was defined to continue adding them. > But seriously -- it may take something with the political force of the EU > to get *ANY* TLD through the system. That is true ONLY if the "political force" is channelled into the development of an open, nondiscriminatory process. If CEC just manages to win a special concession for itself, it sets a very bad precedent. I would like to know more explicitly where you stand. Are you conceding that ICANN's organic processes are useless? Why are you giving up now? The issue has not been passed to the NC, nor formally considered by the Board. The WG has just completed the first phase of its work. How can you say that we are "stuck?" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 18:39:20 -0800 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 06:34:31PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote: > From: "Kent Crispin" > > In my opinion anyone that supports new TLDs in ANY form should support > > the .eu proposal. > > I understand this perspective. But the effective destruction of DNSO process > would outweigh the benefits of breaking the logjam, particularly if it is > done under the subterfuge of a new ccTLD. There is no reason to think that this would destroy DNSO process. On the contrary, I think it would create incentive to get real DNSO processes in place. > > It should be clear to anyone paying attention that > > if processes are being developed it is happening at such a slow rate > > that it isn't visible to the naked eye. The gears are completely > > stuck, and we need movement to get them unstuck. > > In what sense are they stuck? We have overwhelming support in this WG and in > the public comments to proceed with their creation. There has been strong support for the introduction of new TLDs since before the IAHC. > The Board has indicated > its willingness to discuss the issue at its impending meeting. The next step > is to define more specific ways of implementing the introduction of the > first 10 new TLDs. Ie, the next step is to define the process. Ie, we have made zero progress in the definition of process. > If ICANN's board decides to include .EU in that initial > batch, it wouldn't bother me a lot, as long as a procedure was defined to > continue adding them. Ie, ICANN's board will define the process, and the DNSO, and this WG, will have served the incredibly useful purpose of reporting to the Board that there is demand for new TLDs. > > But seriously -- it may take something with the political force of the EU > > to get *ANY* TLD through the system. > > That is true ONLY if the "political force" is channelled into the > development of an open, nondiscriminatory process. If CEC just manages to > win a special concession for itself, it sets a very bad precedent. Possibly, but it also creates the fact of a new TLD *approved through ICANN*. Right now there are multiple forces arrayed against any new TLDs, including some TM interests, some of the ccTLD registries, and of course NSI. Those forces have their greatest effect through the USG. It is not clear at this point that ICANN has the power to create a new TLD of any kind -- recall that it is DoC that currently holds the keys to the root, and that the DoC is vulnerable to many pressures that we don't see. That is, even if ICANN somehow approves the 10 you fondly dream about, that doesn't mean they will get in the root. ICANN of course knows this, and is not going to generate a confrontation over the issue. In my opinion it will take significant political pressure to get ICANN as a whole in position to even begin using some kind of process. On the other hand, if ICANN *does* approve a new TLD, the pressure for processes will only intensify -- ICANN itself *needs* a process. > I would like to know more explicitly where you stand. > Are you conceding that ICANN's organic processes are useless? > Why are you giving up now? I'm not giving up anything. My political awareness is different than yours. > The issue has not been passed to the NC, nor > formally considered by the Board. The WG has just completed the first phase > of its work. How can you say that we are "stuck?" Because we have accomplished nothing. No processes will come out of the DNSO until it is clear that they are actually needed. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 21:51:53 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] forwarded for Jay Parker >Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 17:49:20 -0500 >Subject: Re: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs >From: Jack Parker >To: Milton Mueller >CC: > >Milton, >Thanks for the reply. I completely agree that the .eu proponents' motives >and rationale are probably flawed and less than 100% pure. I just hope >standards can be developed which make it very difficult - but not impossible >- for rTLD groups to form. For example, what if participants had to >"donate" a certain amount of their ccTLD allotment to form the rTLD pool? Is >that feasible? What if most of the revenue gathered from rTLD registrations >had to be fed back into programs which supported significant internet >development? Those are the kinds of things we're discussing in the .carib >initiative. > > >Jay Parker >West Indies Communications Group >International Trust House >180 East Bay Street >Charleston, South Carolina 29401 >USA >tel: +843-805-8460 >fax: +843-805-8466 >www.westcomgroup.com > >> From: Milton Mueller >> Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 16:39:52 -0500 >> To: wgc >> Subject: Re: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs >> >> Jay: >> I doubt if anyone is dismissing the notion of a regional TLD. Many of us >> support >> any number of new TLDs, including regional ones. The problem with .EU is the >> method by which the proposal is being promoted. .EU is really just a new TLD >> that certain Europeans want to compete with dot com, yet it is being advanced >> as >> a kind of quasi-ccTLD. This is both dishonest and a case of queue-jumping. The >> advocates of EU have refused to respect the DNSO's procedures, but instead are >> attempting to use sheer political muscle to get a delegation. This sets a >> dangerous precedent. >> >> As Rutkowski has already pointed out, there is a large measure of hypocrisy in >> the request. For two or three years the EC insisted that dot com and the other >> gTLDs were international in scope and needed to be regulated on an >> international >> basis, via ICANN. They got what they wanted. Now they're saying that com isn't >> really global, it's North American, and when it comes to THEIR own regional >> TLD, >> it doesn't have to do through ICANN's DNSO it can just be created via >> political >> fiat. This request has disastrous consequences for DNSO and its procedures if >> its successful. It says that DNSO is a sideshow. It says that the little folk >> can play around with working groups and follow the rules all they like, but if >> the big guys with guns decide they want something it will happen. >> >> This working group has documented an overwhelming consensus for the addition >> of >> a significant number of new TLDs. There will be room for a .eu and many others >> once we settle the implementation issues. If that process is short-circuited >> via >> a end-around .EU delegation we've all been wasting our time. >> >> Jay Parker wrote: >> >>> The .eu debate is complicated, that much is clear. However, there are areas >>> of the globe, such as the Caribbean Basin, which could benefit tremendously >>> from the kind of community a regional TLD could foster. Unlike the EU, which >> >> >> > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 17:26:20 +0100 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU At 08:30 PM 2/3/2000 , Christopher Ambler wrote: >It is ironic to remember that AlterNIC, in 1995, was told, >"go ahead and create your own root servers if you must," >yet the EU's threat to do the same is making ICANN jump. >It's all about who you fear. For those unfamiliar with the history of this assertion about AlterNIC, note that the source (authority) of the statement is not provided. In particular, IANA did not authorize any other root activities. Not surprisingly, proponents of AlterNIC contest this fact. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 14:58:11 +0100 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU At 09:06 AM 2/4/2000 , Joseph Friedman wrote: >What constitutes "authoritative" for this issue? Joseph, 1. You made an assertion of fact and the (detailed) basis for it was requested. In case you have forgotten which assertion is in question: At 04:07 PM 2/3/2000 , Joseph Friedman wrote: >No .EU should be created. .XX is reserved for the ISO country code list. 2. More than one person has attempted to ask you to expain yourself. The simple reality is that your assertion of fact was not valid. You are welcome to provide detailed, authoritative text that proves otherwise. d/ ps. All of this, of course, ignores the fact that the EU is seeking a listing in the ISO table... =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 17:26:53 +0100 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs At 01:21 AM 2/4/2000 , Harold Feld wrote: >Contrary to Dave Crocker, I do not believe there is a "ccTLD process" that >handles >this. The bulk of the ccTLD delegations took place well before the formation >of ICANN, and ICANN's relationship with the ccTLDs is still vague. I would like to thank Harold for this very clear, direct and candid perspective. I believe, represents the perspective of a number of participants. The problem with that perspective is that it seeks to ignore all IANA history and on-going processes. It shows no real concern for making progress, instead focusing on the opportinities provided in an abstract sandbox for inventing new procedures. This is much like saying "you did a great job for 15years, now we will ignore your work and start all over." ccTLD processes have not been smooth, over the years, but they HAVE been extensive and productive. It is not the task of this group to invent all-new DNS services and procedures, but rather to CONTINUE and enhance existing services and procedures. Rather than looking with glee at each opportunity to intervene and further delay expansion of DNS TLD service, it should be the task of this group to encourage continuation of existing work and seek to intervene only where major difficulties require it. .EU is being pursued within the ccTLD umbrella. ccTLDs pertain to governments and similar authorities. The European Union clearly and simply fits within that scope. That leaves only the two, strictly procedural questions of its having an entry in the ISO table and the EU clearly designating its administrative authority for liaising on DNS issues. There are few issues within IANA/ICANN that could be clearer or simpler. It is essential that we not succumb to personal pique, egotistical desires to be involved in every detail of IANA/ICANN, or the efforts by a few to obscure and misdirect discussion. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 23:20:09 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 04-Feb-2000 Dave Crocker wrote: > .EU is being pursued within the ccTLD umbrella. ccTLDs pertain to > governments and similar authorities. The European Union clearly and simply Your comment above is wrong. Plain and simple. ccTLDs do not pertain to governments in any way, no matter what the GAC would like to have happen. - - -- William X. Walsh DSo Networks http://dso.net/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://dso.net/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: DSo Networks iD8DBQE4m88p8zLmV94Pz+IRAt+xAKDmGRQJF7pGNe2WCbysCzsXGr4AuwCgvEPR hAdhCcUX6Ak8p92wZQyshII= =7qnT - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 23:26:22 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dave enjoys claiming "facts" when none exist, if they help his cause. Once again, let's refute with the truth. The source is the late Jon Postel. The witnesses are Mr. Eugene Kashpureff, Mr. Marc Hurst, Mr. Richard Sexton, Mr. Christopher Ambler, Mr. Simon Higgs, Mr. John Frangie, and Mr. William Manning. These gentlemen all were witness directly to this. Indeed, the suggestion was made many times between November 1995 and October 1996 in his context as head of IANA, and between October 1996 and mid-1997 in what I must assume was the same capacity (but is in doubt due to the ill-fated IAHC fiasco). Additionally, there are posted messages from the late Jon Postel to the "newdom" lists, also suggesting that those who wished to create new TLDs create their own roots. There are also suggestions, though some might say they were posted in jest, from IAHC members posted to the IAHC list. I question the authority of the IAHC members to have made this suggestion in any form that matters. I don't question the late Jon Postel's authority in this instance. In summary, however, this is moot. The issue at hand is that the EU has threatened to create their own roots if ICANN does not add .EU; as a result, ICANN appears to be willing to add .EU in order to avoid the resultant root fragmentation. I find this humourous at best, considering what has happened in the past. What ICANN does next will be very telling (as well as make the path they choose to take clear). - - -- Christopher Ambler - PGP Public Key: http://www.ambler.net/Chris - - -----Original Message----- From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Dave Crocker Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 8:26 AM To: wg-c@dnso.org Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU At 08:30 PM 2/3/2000 , Christopher Ambler wrote: >It is ironic to remember that AlterNIC, in 1995, was told, >"go ahead and create your own root servers if you must," >yet the EU's threat to do the same is making ICANN jump. >It's all about who you fear. For those unfamiliar with the history of this assertion about AlterNIC, note that the source (authority) of the statement is not provided. In particular, IANA did not authorize any other root activities. Not surprisingly, proponents of AlterNIC contest this fact. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use Comment: Signed and Encrypted EMail preferred. Fnord. iQA/AwUBOJvQnskU7GoO9fgUEQJbCACgplhUPxEdET2+fV9GCKz3OE19HX4AoLGj 5ZCZRSsm4bAOQOP5ylMesSia =iHWk - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 23:27:52 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >It is essential that we not succumb to personal pique, egotistical >desires to be involved in every detail of IANA/ICANN, or the >efforts by a few to obscure and misdirect discussion. Pots, kettles, you know the rest. Christopher - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use Comment: Signed and Encrypted EMail preferred. Fnord. iQA/AwUBOJvQ+MkU7GoO9fgUEQLPDQCdHZ+q8TVC4v/ya06JVSaOZ5GV/iQAn3ob ZJ4b4fA7huO70w2KsTCKSi2g =flj2 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2000 07:03:23 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU Two thoughts: 1. Kent writes: >It is not clear at this point that ICANN has the power to create a >new TLD of any kind -- recall that it is DoC that currently holds the >keys to the root, and that the DoC is vulnerable to many pressures that >we don't see. >That is, even if ICANN somehow approves the 10 you fondly dream about, >that doesn't mean they will get in the root. ICANN of course knows >this, and is not going to generate a confrontation over the issue. I think this is quite mistaken. I'm writing from the dubious perspective of having worked closely with all of the USG players on this issue, most especially Becky Burr, during my brief tenure as a bureaucrat in the run-up to the Green and White papers. I've seen the various pressures on DoC. But I'm quite confident that if a new gTLD proposal runs the gauntlet of the ICANN process, it will be approved by USG. And I think that ICANN knows that too. 2. Kent points out that we haven't done much to develop the processes for the introduction of new TLDs, and he's right -- it's nice that we've got recommendations about the need for new TLDs, and about the size of the initial rollout, but that's only the first step. We still have before us issues including: What process should ICANN use to select new gTLD registries? What minimum qualifications must a gTLD registry have? In particular, must it be a nonprofit entity? Must all gTLD registries operate an open SRS? (If so, should there be common SRS software? How is it to be developed, and by whom?) What process should ICANN use to select new gTLD strings? What characteristics must a new gTLD have? In particular, must it have a "charter" reflecting a specialized purpose? What rules should be in place regarding access to registrant data? Should ICANN mandate minimum information that a registrant must provide? If so, what should that information be? Should it mandate the manner in which registry or registrars in new gTLDs should make that information available? Should there be a centralized database? What further conditions relating to trademark-domain name issues, if any, should be satisfied before new gTLDs are introduced? The fault for this, over the past few weeks, has been mine -- I've had the job of moving these issues forward, and I haven't done it. I've been overwhelmed by other responsibilities,and I'm sorry. I pledge to do better. I'm getting on a plane in a couple hours to attend a conference, and I won't be back till Tuesday night, so my contributions until Wednesday will be spotty. After that, though, I belong to you, and I promise to try to make up for lost time. Again, you have my apologies, and a promise to do better. Jon Jonathan Weinberg weinberg@msen.com At 06:39 PM 2/4/00 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote: >On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 06:34:31PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote: >> From: "Kent Crispin" >> > In my opinion anyone that supports new TLDs in ANY form should support >> > the .eu proposal. >> >> I understand this perspective. But the effective destruction of DNSO process >> would outweigh the benefits of breaking the logjam, particularly if it is >> done under the subterfuge of a new ccTLD. > >There is no reason to think that this would destroy DNSO process. On >the contrary, I think it would create incentive to get real DNSO >processes in place. > >> > It should be clear to anyone paying attention that >> > if processes are being developed it is happening at such a slow rate >> > that it isn't visible to the naked eye. The gears are completely >> > stuck, and we need movement to get them unstuck. >> >> In what sense are they stuck? We have overwhelming support in this WG and in >> the public comments to proceed with their creation. > >There has been strong support for the introduction of new TLDs since >before the IAHC. > >> The Board has indicated >> its willingness to discuss the issue at its impending meeting. The next step >> is to define more specific ways of implementing the introduction of the >> first 10 new TLDs. > >Ie, the next step is to define the process. Ie, we have made zero >progress in the definition of process. > >> If ICANN's board decides to include .EU in that initial >> batch, it wouldn't bother me a lot, as long as a procedure was defined to >> continue adding them. > >Ie, ICANN's board will define the process, and the DNSO, and this WG, >will have served the incredibly useful purpose of reporting to the >Board that there is demand for new TLDs. > >> > But seriously -- it may take something with the political force of the EU >> > to get *ANY* TLD through the system. >> >> That is true ONLY if the "political force" is channelled into the >> development of an open, nondiscriminatory process. If CEC just manages to >> win a special concession for itself, it sets a very bad precedent. > >Possibly, but it also creates the fact of a new TLD *approved through >ICANN*. Right now there are multiple forces arrayed against any new >TLDs, including some TM interests, some of the ccTLD registries, and of >course NSI. Those forces have their greatest effect through the USG. >It is not clear at this point that ICANN has the power to create a >new TLD of any kind -- recall that it is DoC that currently holds the >keys to the root, and that the DoC is vulnerable to many pressures that >we don't see. > >That is, even if ICANN somehow approves the 10 you fondly dream about, >that doesn't mean they will get in the root. ICANN of course knows >this, and is not going to generate a confrontation over the issue. In >my opinion it will take significant political pressure to get ICANN as >a whole in position to even begin using some kind of process. On the >other hand, if ICANN *does* approve a new TLD, the pressure for >processes will only intensify -- ICANN itself *needs* a process. > >> I would like to know more explicitly where you stand. >> Are you conceding that ICANN's organic processes are useless? >> Why are you giving up now? > >I'm not giving up anything. My political awareness is different than >yours. > >> The issue has not been passed to the NC, nor >> formally considered by the Board. The WG has just completed the first phase >> of its work. How can you say that we are "stuck?" > >Because we have accomplished nothing. No processes will come out of >the DNSO until it is clear that they are actually needed. > >-- >Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be >kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain > > ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #4 ************************