From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #9 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Sunday, February 13 2000 Volume 01 : Number 009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 23:25:22 -0800 (PST) From: Karl Auerbach Subject: Re: [wg-c] STRAW POLL Here's what I previously sent to Jonathan directly without a cc to the list. --karl-- - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 16:21:43 -0800 (PST) From: Karl Auerbach To: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Re: [wg-c] STRAW POLL > 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*: My vote: #4. > 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 My vote: #4. > QUESTION THREE > 6. Other (please explain). Any natural person who has attended an IFWP meeting or ICANN "meeting" or who has posted e-mail on the IFWP mailing list or on any ICANN mailing list or who can otherwise demonstrate participation in these discussions during the year 1998 or 1999, can enter "the lottery". The lottery will operate through a series of selections, the winner of any selection is disqualified from further participation. Immediately there will be six selections. And then there will be 100 selections per year starting six months after the first six. The winner of each is given the right to select a TLD name, in case of conflicts, the earlier winner gets priority. That winner is then permitted to establish that named TLD in the ICANN system of roots. That winner is permitted to license, sell, or otherwise alienate that license under any terms the winner sees fit. The winner is under no obligation to exercise that license except that if it is not put into practice within five years after winning, the license (and the name) terminates. --karl-- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 00:17:18 -0800 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] STRAW POLL On Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 03:30:02PM -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > 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. That wasn't the source of that definition. The source of the defintion was the "gTLD" in the "gTLD-MoU". The MoU explicitly defined the term gTLD as I have described. Prior to that time the term gTLD was almost ignored; the meaning in wide use is the one defined by the gTLD-MoU. Moreover, the person that wrote the charter to this WG came from the MoU perspective, and the meaning intended in the charter to this WG is as I have discribed. There is nothing to argue about. You wish to change the charter of the WG to include chartered TLDs -- it clearly did not contemplate them in the beginning. We can ask Javier, but it really isn't necessary. The intent of this WG was quite clear from the beginning, and it definitely did not include chartered TLDs. Indeed, if you look at the text of the charter, and the list of tasks it listed, it is quite clear that chartered TLDs were not intended. > 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. This straw poll is simply silly. There in fact has been little meaningful discussion of charters or sponsors -- we don't even have a clear consensus on definitions of the terms (note how the lack of consensus on the definition of "gTLD" causes problems even today). So this poll is essentially equivalent to asking whether or not we should support gaborbalizif. Such straw polls are not a useful way to proceed in a WG. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 09:48:59 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Re: [wg-c] STRAW POLL At 12:17 AM 2/12/00 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote: >On Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 03:30:02PM -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: >> 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. > >That wasn't the source of that definition. The source of the defintion >was the "gTLD" in the "gTLD-MoU". The MoU explicitly defined the term gTLD >as I have described. Prior to that time the term gTLD was almost >ignored; the meaning in wide use is the one defined by the gTLD-MoU. >Moreover, the person that wrote the charter to this WG came from the >MoU perspective, and the meaning intended in the charter to this WG is >as I have discribed. There is nothing to argue about. You wish to >change the charter of the WG to include chartered TLDs -- it clearly >did not contemplate them in the beginning. We can ask Javier, but it >really isn't necessary. The intent of this WG was quite clear from the >beginning, and it definitely did not include chartered TLDs. Indeed, >if you look at the text of the charter, and the list of tasks it >listed, it is quite clear that chartered TLDs were not intended. This is quite silly. Here's WG-C's first task as defined in its charter, which is on : Should there be new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs)? If yes: How many? Which? At which speed should they be deployed and in which order? What should be the mechanism for developing new gTLDs after all these are deployed. *Should each new gTLD have a specific charter?* I'll quote it again: this WG was explicitly tasked to decide whether "each new gTLD [should] have a specific charter." For better or for worse, that's the job we were given. There's no room for an argument that the word "gTLD" in *our* 1999 charter somehow does not include a "gTLD [with] a specific charter." >> [my own text snipped] > >This straw poll is simply silly. There in fact has been little >meaningful discussion of charters or sponsors -- we don't even have a >clear consensus on definitions of the terms (note how the lack of >consensus on the definition of "gTLD" causes problems even today). > >So this poll is essentially equivalent to asking whether or not we >should support gaborbalizif. Such straw polls are not a useful way to >proceed in a WG. It's a shame -- and a loss -- that you're not participating. You did vote when I asked a similar question in a straw poll some months ago. Back then, you favored "option 1" for selecting new TLDs, under which "[e]ach proponent of a new gTLD would apply to the NC for formation of a WG devoted to that gTLD string (or to several strings). The WG would then generate a charter for each proposed new TLD, and it would be up to the NC and ICANN to approve the WG's product." At the time, we were all over the lot on the issue. Since then, the WG has spent a bunch of time debating chartered TLDs (particularly in the second half of December). I'm hopeful, after further ventilating the issues, that we'll do better in this poll. We may not -- and, in any event, I don't think a straw poll should be the end of our analysis. I do think it's an appropriate step at this point to see where we stand. Kent -- you wrote recently, in a note to ga, that there were things you wish I had done differently. FWIW, I agree with you. And I think it's likely that we regret a lot of the same things. But we're here, and I think we'd do well to push forward in the forum we've got. Jon Jonathan Weinberg co-chair, wg-c weinberg@msen.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 11:40:02 -0500 From: "Milton Mueller" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU - ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Charles Broomfield" > 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. Correct. But what you're overlooking here is that this is probably the first time in the ISO-3166 list's history that a formal request has been made to add a code to the list specifically in order to qualify for a TLD. > The only exception to that was the request > from UK to have ".uk" instead of ".gb" because it was more inclusive. This is an interesting example of the retroactive creation of a myth to come up with a plausible explanation of something that was actually implausible. In fact, the British were the first to request and country code and Postel used .UK because he didn't bother to check the actual list! He thought it "obvious" it would be .UK. This is relevant because it shows just how casually and unilaterally things were done fifteen years ago, and how inapplicable IANA precedents can be to the current situation. Today, we need an international proceeding and a formal interaction between high-level EC and ISO agencies; back then, whatever quirky thing Jon decided was law. (BTW, there is nothing "more inclusive about "uk" than "gb" -- the terms Great Britain and United Kingdom are used interchangably.) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 09:33:20 -0800 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] STRAW POLL On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 09:48:59AM -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > > This is quite silly. Here's WG-C's first task as defined in its charter, > which is on : > > Should there be new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs)? If yes: How many? > Which? At which speed should they be deployed and in which order? What > should be the mechanism for developing new gTLDs after all these are > deployed. *Should each new gTLD have a specific charter?* You're right -- in my haste looking over the charter I just didn't see that line, so my argument in that area is garbage. > >This straw poll is simply silly. There in fact has been little > >meaningful discussion of charters or sponsors -- we don't even have a > >clear consensus on definitions of the terms (note how the lack of > >consensus on the definition of "gTLD" causes problems even today). > > > >So this poll is essentially equivalent to asking whether or not we > >should support gaborbalizif. Such straw polls are not a useful way to > >proceed in a WG. > > It's a shame -- and a loss -- that you're not participating. I firmly believe that my participation, if it has any value at all, comes through discussion, not through whatever vote I might cast in a straw poll. > You did vote > when I asked a similar question in a straw poll some months ago. Back > then, Back then the negative aspects of this approach wasn't quite so glaringly obvious... [...] > Kent -- you wrote recently, in a note to ga, that there were things you > wish I had done differently. FWIW, I agree with you. And I think it's > likely that we regret a lot of the same things. But we're here, and I > think we'd do well to push forward in the forum we've got. Carry on. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:34:44 -0500 From: "Milton Mueller" Subject: [wg-c] Straw poll response WG-C STRAW POLL QUESTION ONE I support Option 4: > 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 I support #4: > 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. This is the best option. Here are some elaborations/qualifications: ICANN defines a set of minimal technical/operational criteria for registries, and then receives applications from registries. The criteria would include the term (duration) of the right. The applications would specify the desired TLD string. First cut: ICANN decides whether applicants meet the tech/op criteria. These should be minimal -- in the spirit of RFC 819. Second cut: Because we have an artificial limit of 10, some rationing must be performed. I would propose an auction in the initial stage. Qualified applicants would bid for the right to be among the first ten introduced. We know that a lottery will not deliver the license to the most able or competent service provider, and if the right is transferale the lottery winner will just hold their own auction after winning the right. So we may as well start with an auction. (Yes, in an environment of artificial scarcity this will eliminate non-commercial players in the first round of distributions. But that's a problem with artificial scarcity, not auctions.) Another problem with lotteries is that it encourages everyone to submit an application, regardless of whether they are serious or not. While this is fine in the long term, because there can be thousands of TLDs, in the initial distribution it creates administrative problems for ICANN and slows down the process. Another good point about auctions is that it raises money for ICANN, and gives ICANN an incentive to draft the license terms in a way that is not too onerous. The bids for an unattractive license will be low. Registries will make their bids based on their own ideas of the value of the license. This means that registries must be able to choose their own TLD string and business plan. There is no way to value the right to run a registry otherwise. Another interesting question along these lines is when, whether or how ICANN intervenes to deem TLD strings out of bounds. My preference is to keep ICANN as far away as possible from regulating the content of names and the content that goes under names. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 09:35:54 -0800 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 11:40:02AM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote: > > 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. > > Correct. But what you're overlooking here is that this is probably the first > time in the ISO-3166 list's history that a formal request has been made to > add a code to the list specifically in order to qualify for a TLD. Irrelevant for our purposes. > > The only exception to that was the request > > from UK to have ".uk" instead of ".gb" because it was more inclusive. > > This is an interesting example of the retroactive creation of a myth to come > up with a plausible explanation of something that was actually implausible. > In fact, the British were the first to request and country code and Postel > used .UK because he didn't bother to check the actual list! He thought it > "obvious" it would be .UK. Citation? Or are you engagine in the retroactive creation of a myth to come up with a plausible explanation of something that was actually implausible. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 19:01:12 +0100 From: Mark Measday Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU Milton Mueller wrote: > (BTW, there is nothing "more inclusive about "uk" than "gb" -- the terms > Great Britain and United Kingdom are used interchangably.) Yes, Milton, In much the same way 'the Americas' and 'United States of America' are used interchangeably, or 'Taiwan' and 'ROC'. Somewhat dishonouring the memory of the thousands who died arguing that difference and explaining perhaps why you are not invited to lunch with Gerry. If requested, I shall be happy to send a political and geographic atlas to your faculty in Crete. I ask for contributions from wg-c members with this email. As to the rest of your message, you simply have not done your homework. It is this revisionism based on incomplete apperception which mars your otherwise promising work elsewhere. Please be careful. Mark > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 13:03:27 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] STRAW POLL Jonathan, My vote in the current straw poll is as follows: Q1: - scope of policy and jurisdiction desired generally option #3 Q2: - scope of policy and jurisdiction desired in 6-10 option #3 Q3: - mechanism of selection of registries and TLDs option #2 Eric ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 12:28:55 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU At 11:40 AM 2/12/2000 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote: >Correct. But what you're overlooking here is that this is probably the first >time in the ISO-3166 list's history that a formal request has been made to >add a code to the list specifically in order to qualify for a TLD. So? As stated on the IANA pages, : "IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is not a country, nor what code letters are appropriate for a particular country." If you have a problem with the list's contents, go talk with the list's maintainers. This is the wrong forum for trying to communicate with the list's maintainers, Milton. Or are you suggesting CHANGING LONG-ESTABLISHED POLICY and using a different table? > > The only exception to that was the request from UK to have ".uk" > instead of ".gb" because it was more inclusive. > >This is an interesting example of the retroactive creation of a myth to come Actually, this is an example of further wasting the group's time. IANA evolved its practises and as with most processes, things evolved. The early stages did not constitute "precedent" or "policy". They represent "startup decisions." As such, they, too, are irrelevant to the work of this group. >This is relevant because it shows just how casually and unilaterally things >were done fifteen years ago, and how inapplicable IANA precedents can be to What your statement shows is just how casually and unilaterally we are offered definitive-but-baseless interpretations for events at which the speaker was not present and for processes about which they very clearly have far too little (or, more likely, no) information. In particular, the assertions about activities 15 years ago reflects a deep and continuing lack of knowledge about Jon's extensive consultative process. >(BTW, there is nothing "more inclusive about "uk" than "gb" -- the terms >Great Britain and United Kingdom are used interchangably.) It does not take a degree in logic to understand that "United Kingdom Of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" defines a difference between the terms "United Kingdom" and "Great Britain". At least, one suspects that Norther Ireland would count as a significant difference... d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA Gong Xi Fa Cai / Selamat Tahun Baru Cina ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Feb 100 17:20:14 -0400 (AST) From: John Charles Broomfield Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU > > 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. > > Correct. But what you're overlooking here is that this is probably the first > time in the ISO-3166 list's history that a formal request has been made to > add a code to the list specifically in order to qualify for a TLD. Would you care to state the reason why Palestine has pushed so hard to get inclusion into ISO-3166 if not for the purpose of getting a ccTLD? > > The only exception to that was the request > > from UK to have ".uk" instead of ".gb" because it was more inclusive. > > This is an interesting example of the retroactive creation of a myth to come > up with a plausible explanation of something that was actually implausible. > In fact, the British were the first to request and country code and Postel > used .UK because he didn't bother to check the actual list! He thought it > "obvious" it would be .UK. Care to explain the existence of the delegation of ".gb"? > This is relevant because it shows just how casually and unilaterally things > were done fifteen years ago, and how inapplicable IANA precedents can be to > the current situation. > Today, we need an international proceeding and a formal interaction between > high-level EC and ISO agencies; back then, whatever quirky thing Jon decided > was law. > > (BTW, there is nothing "more inclusive about "uk" than "gb" -- the terms > Great Britain and United Kingdom are used interchangably.) Great Britain is the large(ish) island to the right which comprises Wales Scotland and England. United Kingdom includes Northen Ireland (which Great Britain doesn't). The full and long name of the country is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". So, "uk" *is* more inclusive than "gb". Going into debates about whether it is best or not to include Northern Ireland is beyond the scope of the message. In any case, that's enough nit-picking. For whatever reasons that ".eu" get additioned to ISO-3166, that *is* the place where the ccTLD list is derived from. If you think that ".eu" should NOT be added into ISO-3166, then take it up with ISO. I am not discussing the merits or lack of them as to whether ".eu" should or not be introduced to ISO-3166. What I AM saying is that if its in, then that entitles creation of a ccTLD. And if it's NOT in, then no ccTLD. Yours, John Broomfield. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 22:41:07 +0100 From: Mark Measday Subject: [Fwd: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU] > Milton Mueller wrote: > > > (BTW, there is nothing "more inclusive about "uk" than "gb" -- the terms > > Great Britain and United Kingdom are used interchangably.) > > Yes, Milton, > > In much the same way 'the Americas' and 'United States of America' are used > interchangeably, or 'Taiwan' and 'ROC'. Somewhat dishonouring the memory of the > thousands who died arguing that difference and explaining perhaps why you are > not invited to lunch with Gerry. > > If requested, I shall be happy to send a political and geographic atlas to your > faculty in Crete. I ask for contributions from wg-c members with this email. > > As to the rest of your message, you simply have not done your homework. It is > this revisionism based on incomplete apperception which mars your otherwise > promising work elsewhere. Please be careful. > > Mark > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 22:19:48 -0500 (EST) From: Joseph Friedman Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU Is the assertion that the USG-DoC holds the keys to the root factually correct? My understanding was that they gave these "keys" to ICANN upon its creation. - --Joseph On Sat, 5 Feb 2000, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > 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 > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 19:32:04 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 13-Feb-2000 Joseph Friedman wrote: > Is the assertion that the USG-DoC holds the keys to the root factually > correct? My understanding was that they gave these "keys" to ICANN upon > its creation. > > --Joseph Well, since the "key" is the a.root-server.net, I'd say that they haven't given it to ICANN. They specifically retained control over it, and directed that it will remain with NSI under the direction of the DoC for right now. The DoC is supposedly to remain very active in their supervision of the process still. - - -- 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 iD8DBQE4piW08zLmV94Pz+IRAl8zAJ9EhFN7MW/Hu8oim8L0QY9cTTWQ2gCg7ksp 1LZZ+ZuaihSdAMdNTu+PT2U= =OvBJ - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 10:16:25 -0800 (PST) From: Patrick Greenwell Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU On Sat, 12 Feb 100, John Charles Broomfield wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Correct. But what you're overlooking here is that this is probably the first > > time in the ISO-3166 list's history that a formal request has been made to > > add a code to the list specifically in order to qualify for a TLD. > > Would you care to state the reason why Palestine has pushed so hard to get > inclusion into ISO-3166 if not for the purpose of getting a ccTLD? Might I suggest that this subject is more appropriate for a list dealing with ccTLDs given the European Unions application to ISO for .eu, and is off topic given my understanding of the charter of this list, which is to deal with issues surrounding gTLDs? /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell Earth is a single point of failure. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #9 ************************