From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #8 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Saturday, February 12 2000 Volume 01 : Number 008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 17:03:35 -0800 (PST) From: Rick H Wesson Subject: [wg-c] Re: [ga] new WG on chartered/sponsored TLDs kent, why don't you contribute to wg-c rather than support a notion of circumventing it by creating a parrallel working group? - -rick On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Kent Crispin wrote: > So yes, I am frustrated with what goes on in WG-C :-) > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 15:30:02 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] STRAW POLL Thanks, Kent, for getting me off my duff. (For those not following the discussion in ga, Kent Crispin has proposed on that list that the DNSO establish a *new* working group, separate from wg-c, to discuss chartered gTLDs. He makes two arguments why a new working group would be appropriate. First, he suggests, chartered TLDs are outside the scope of wg-c, b/c our own charter "is explicitly tied to generic TLDs, not any other kind of TLDs." Second, he gently urges that wg-c is not working, and that we are more likely to see actual progress toward implementation of new gTLDs by opening up another forum.) I think Kent's first argument is simply wrong -- it is based on the notion that a chartered TLD is not a "gTLD". It's true that Kent circulated a note last summer proposing that we define gTLD as "a TLD that has no enforced criteria for the entities that may register in it," but his proposal got no support. Kent himself noted that his proposal "departs from the rfc1591 definition." RFC 1591 explicitly included all of EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT in its list of "generic TLDs," notwithstanding that some of those are indisputably chartered. That's continued to be the generally accepted terminology. So whatever reasons there may be for establishing a new working group to look at sponsored or chartered TLDs, the notion that proposals for establishing those domains are outside of wg-c's charter isn't one of them. I've got a lot of sympathy for Kent's second argument, and I understand his frustration. Here's an attempt to start doing something about it. I proposed a couple of weeks ago (and got no objection) that I would post to wg-c "a straw poll on the issue of special-purpose or ‘chartered' gTLDs: That's an issue that got a great deal of attention on the list last month, and I expect a straw poll would be helpful in helping us figure out where members of the list stand." So here goes. Jon Jonathan Weinberg co-chair, wg-c weinberg@msen.com WG-C STRAW POLL Please respond before midnight UTC following February 21, 2000. QUESTION ONE Please select from the following possibilities, *as applied to the deployment of new gTLDs in the name space over the medium to long term*: 1. All new gTLDs must have charters that meaningfully limit the universe of people who can register in those gTLDs. 2. The name space should not include any new chartered gTLDs. (Alternatively, if new gTLDs have charters, those charters may not place meaningful limits on the universe of people who can register in the gTLD.) 3. ICANN, in selecting new gTLDs, should approve some chartered gTLDs and some unchartered ones. (Alternatively, ICANN should require that all gTLDs have charters, but it should approve some gTLDs with charters that meaningfully limit the universe of people who can register in the gTLD, and some gTLDs with charters that do not impose any such limits.) 4. ICANN should simply select new registries and leave issues of names and charters (including whether to limit the universe of people who can register in the domain, and if so how) to the new registries. QUESTION TWO The working group has reached and reaffirmed a recommendation that the initial expansion of the name space should consist of six to ten new gTLDs, followed by an evaluation period. Please select from the following possibilities, *as applied to that initial rollout*. 1. All of the gTLDs in the initial rollout must have charters that meaningfully limit the universe of people who can register in those gTLDs. 2. The initial rollout should not include any new chartered gTLDs. (Alternatively, any charters for new gTLDs may not place meaningful limits on the universe of people who can register in the gTLD.) 3. ICANN, in selecting new gTLDs in the initial rollout, should approve some chartered gTLDs and some unchartered ones. (Alternatively, ICANN should require that all gTLDs have charters, but it should approve some gTLDs with charters that meaningfully limit the universe of people who can register in the gTLD, and some gTLDs with charters that do not impose any such limits.) 4. ICANN should simply select new registries and leave issues of names and charters (including whether to limit the universe of people who can register in the domain, and if so how) to the new registries. QUESTION THREE The issue of chartered gTLDs is tied up with the larger issue of how ICANN should select new gTLDs -- in particular, whether (a) ICANN itself should be the final arbiter of new gTLDs' names and charters, or (b) ICANN should simply select new registries and leave the choice of names and charters to them. I think that at this point we can't avoid confronting the larger question of how ICANN should pick new TLDs in the initial rollout. (Actually, we're returning to the question; part of last summer's straw poll spoke to the same issue. The results then were inconclusive.) Please select from among these possibilities: 1. ICANN picks a set of registries according to objective criteria. (Alternatively, ICANN narrows the set of applicants using objective criteria, and chooses among the remaining applicants, if necessary, via lotteries or auctions). Once chosen, registries pick their own gTLD names and associated charters (if any), subject to a process under which ICANN can resolve conflicts and can deem certain gTLD strings out of bounds. 2. ICANN, through a working group or otherwise, identifies a set of gTLDs to be introduced in the initial rollout, and establishes names and charters for those new TLDs. It solicits applications from would-be registries to run those TLDs, and picks the ones it deems best-suited or best- qualified. 3. ICANN, through a working group or otherwise, identifies a set of gTLDs to be introduced in the initial rollout, and establishes names and charters for those new TLDs. It solicits applications from would-be registries to run those TLDs, and picks those registries through a lottery or auction process. 4. Each would-be registry proposing a new gTLD applies to the Names Council (or to ICANN directly) for approval; if the gTLD is to be bounded by a charter, the applicant must supply one. If the application is approved, the applicant becomes the new registry, subject to its proposed charter. 5. Each person proposing a new gTLD applies to the Names Council for the formation of a working group devoted to that gTLD (or to several gTLDs). The working group identifies a registry/sponsor, and generates a charter, for its proposed new TLD. If the gTLD is approved, then the entity identified by the working group becomes the registry/sponsor. The identity of the registry operator may be set for competitive bid (and periodic rebid). 6. Other (please explain). ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 12:41:23 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] STRAW POLL I will first express my doubt that we will find consensus. For that matter, I feel that we few (we happy few) do not represent the consensus needed. With that said, however... QUESTION ONE 4. ICANN should simply select new registries and leave issues of names and charters (including whether to limit the universe of people who can register in the domain, and if so how) to the new registries. QUESTION TWO 4. ICANN should simply select new registries and leave issues of names and charters (including whether to limit the universe of people who can register in the domain, and if so how) to the new registries. QUESTION THREE 1. ICANN picks a set of registries according to objective criteria. (Alternatively, ICANN narrows the set of applicants using objective criteria, and chooses among the remaining applicants, if necessary, via lotteries or auctions). Once chosen, registries pick their own gTLD names and associated charters (if any), subject to a process under which ICANN can resolve conflicts and can deem certain gTLD strings out of bounds. CAVEAT: I do not support the parenthetical beginning with the word, "Alternatively." If this invalidates this position, then please count me as expressing support for number 6, with the text above sans the aforementioned parenthetical. Christopher ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Feb 100 20:02:48 -0400 (AST) From: John Charles Broomfield Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU Hi All, I know I'm a week late, but hey, I needed the two week holiday! (and catching up is a pain). > Kevin, > In the internet there is no such thing. These things were always at the whim > of Dr Postel as long as he didn't raize the ire of the NSF. Now with the DoC > being involved and ICANN doing what it pleases, anything is probably fair game. > > But the fact remains that he is correct, it is the current practice, and I > fully support it remaining that way. > > So then the question remains, do regions qualify for "regional" domains in the > ccTLD class? > > Interesting question. > > But rather than places them in the 2 letter domain category traditionally > reserved for ISO-3166 based delegation, I would much prefer to see them use a 3 > letter variation, like .eur, which makes more sense anyway. > > I also think that Milton has it spot on. There is absolutely NO reason why the > European Union proposal should be considered as ANY different from any new TLD, > and subject to all of the processes that are being developed for same. If the European Union were to attempt an approach by going directly to ICANN and saying "put '.eu' in the roots and give it to me" without any OTHER action, then it would be quite abnormal, and I would agree totally with you in that the attitude would be no different from f.e. IOD requesting '.web'. Also, they would be going completely against the acceptance (you may or not like it, but it is there) that two-letter codes are for ISO-3166 2-letter listings. However, that is *not* what the European Union is doing. The European Union has approached ISO and said "hi, we want the code '.eu' in ISO-3166". As such, the ISO-3166 maintanance agency *seems* quite favorable in that it has already included '.eu' in the list of reserved codes. Assuming that the EU *does* achieve listing of ".eu", then inclusion in the traditional root system is something that could be considered a right. In any case, RFC-1591 states quite clearly that IANA (now ICANN) is *NOT* in the business of deciding who is or isn't a country and that the decision is deferred to the ISO-3166 list. In other words, if your two-letters are in ISO-3166 you get an entry in the taditional roots, and if your two-letters are not in ISO-3166, you don't. The only exception to that was the request from UK to have ".uk" instead of ".gb" because it was more inclusive. You may argue all you want the merits or lack of them as to whether the EU can or not be considered a country, but keep in mind that although we call the current group of 2-letter TLDs the "ccTLDs", in fact in that list there are quite a LOT of combinations over which the consideration of them as a country is more than debatable. For example (and forgive any mistake I may have made by attributing as dependent a territory that is independent): .tf Franch Southern Territories (in fact antarctic islands with penguins living on them). .io British Indian Ocean Territory (I've never actually figured out what islands or body of water this is supposed to cover). .fk Falkland Islands (british colony -disputed by Argentina- but certainly NOT independent. Either British or Argentinian, depending where you stand) .pr Puerto Rico (is it an independent country? If so, then why are you legally entitled to stick "made in USA" to produce from there?) .gp, .mq, .gf, .re Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guyanne and Reunion. All of them are what France calls "DOM" which means overseas department, or in other words, provinces that are not on the mainland. .nc, .yt, .pf, .pm New Caledonia, Mayotte, French Polinesia, St Pierre and Michelon. ALL of them are what France calls "TOM" which means overseas territories. They have some degeree of autonomy but still depend on France. .mh Marshall Islands (USA territory I believe?). .vi US Virgin Islands (also USA territory?). .hk Hong-Kong (try telling China that Hong-Kong is a country). .gi Gibraltar (UK colony, with some autonomy but...) .im, .je, .gg Isle of Mann, Jersey and Guernsey. All of them small islands around UK under british sovereignty (with different levels of autonomy, but not countries) .gl Greenland (it belongs to Denmark!) .an Netherlands Antilles (A dutch colony in the Caribbean, fully dependent on the Netherlands). .aq Antartica. Hey, is THIS a country????? And that's just a list off the top of my head. I'm sure I'm missing half of them... On the other side of the coin, we could argue for inclusion with lots of different reasons for Tibet, Scotland, Western Sahara, Basque Country, Corsica, Kurds (or whatever you'd like to call a Kurd countrolled territory) etc etc etc... The fact of the matter is that IANA and now ICANN is *NOT* in the political business of granting or not country status to ANYTHING. It just picks up ISO-3166 "as is" and works off that. For entities like IOD it is very convenient to try and ignore this and somehow paint an addition of '.eu' as jumping the queue, but for that matter, two ccTLDs that I have direct involvement with were included AFTER Chris setup his ".web"-zone, so under that consideration quite a few two-letter TLDs have already passed in front of him too!!! Do you have a gripe with ".eu" being listed as European Union in ISO-3166? Then take it up with the ISO maintenance agency. But do note that the current European Union is not that much different from the federation of states that makes up USA (U is United and S is States). Whatever, it is NOT something that ICANN should at all get involved with, nor do I think should this WG get involved with either, unless of course the European Union decides to add ".eu" via some other method than by going through ISO-3166. Same goes for Palestine. If Chris can manage to pull one off with ISO and get IOD listed as a country with ".we" as a two letter code, then fine by me if he gets that inserted in the legacy roots. Yours, John Broomfield. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 00:19:09 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] straw poll I neglected to say anything about whether people should reply to me or to the list, and three people have submitted responses to me privately. I'll count the votes either way, but I expect that it's preferable to reply to the list. That way, folks on the list can see what others think, and can check my math if necessary, rather than just taking my word for the tabulation. On a related note, through the heroic-as-always efforts of the DNSO listadmin, wg-c is now available in digest form. To switch to the digest, send a message to majordomo@dnso.org with this content: unsubscribe wg-c subscribe wg-c-digest Jon ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #8 ************************