From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #10 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Monday, February 14 2000 Volume 01 : Number 010 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 23:43:14 +1300 From: Joop Teernstra Subject: Re: [wg-c] STRAW POLL At 15:30 11/02/00 -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: >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 > >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). > For a quick straw poll I feel closest to this solution, although many details should still be worked out, especially with regards to the formation of the WG, the generation of a Charter (!) , the approval procedure by the NC, the representativity of the NC and the method chosen for competitive tendering. For the future holders of SLD's in such new gTLD's the stability (also financial) and the democratic setup of such registries are paramount. - --Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , founder of the Cyberspace Association, the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners http://www.idno.org (or direct:) http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:43:36 +0100 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Subject: Re: [wg-c] STRAW POLL Here is what I sent to Jonathan earlier. My personal opinions. >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 answer: >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.) > > > >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*. My answer: >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.) > > > >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: My answer: >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). Personal comment: Of the 3 questions, the last one was the only one where I did not feel that the example answers given weren't completely clear, and I did not feel very comfortable with the answer I picked. I guess that's where the next fight will occur. Harald - -- Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 09:34:16 +0900 From: Dongman Lee Subject: Re: [wg-c] STRAW POLL I support the following option for each question. Question 1: >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 2: >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 3: >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. Personal comment: I believe that ICANN/DNSO should require registries to provide a list of new gTLDs that they intend to create when they apply for creation of new gTLDs. This would help success of introduction of first 6-10 new gTLDs. Regards, Dongman Lee - -- Dongman Lee, Ph.D. Associate Professor School of Info & Computer Engineering Information and Communications University 58-4 Hwaam-Dong, Yusung-Ku Taejon 305-348 Korea E-mail: dlee@icu.ac.kr Web: http://www.icu.ac.kr Tel: 042-866-6113 Fax: 042-866-6154 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 21:23:52 -0500 From: "Winer, Jonathan" Subject: RE: [wg-c] STRAW POLL As a former USG policymaker with a legal-enforcement perspective now working on e-commerce issues at a US law firm and new to this group, in my first posting, I note my authoritarian preference for options #1 to each of the three questions posed. Certainty, predictability, reduced strain on system design, lowest cost to current users and architecture seem to me important equities that would be facilitated by an ICANN that exercises greater control in establishing a standards-based regime, with each top level global domain representing to some extent a qualitative territority, rather than an ICANN which devolves its responesbility to facilitate maximum experimentation in diverse quarters. I appreciate that this appears to be the minority view amongst those participating in this working group. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Weinberg > Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 3:30 PM > To: wg-c@dnso.org > 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). NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone (404-881-7000) or by electronic mail (postmaster@alston.com), and delete this message and all copies and backups thereof. Thank you. ======================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 21:40:36 -0500 From: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." 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*: I select 4 as best of the choices listed for the LONG term. 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*. I select 3 as best of the choices listed. 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.) 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: 6. (OTHER) ICANN, through a working group or otherwise, identifies a set of character strings for 6-10 UNCHARTERED gTLDs to be introduced in the initial rollout. For the chartered gTLDs and the subsequent rollout of additional TLDs, ICANN accepts/picks registries according to objective criteria. Once accepted/selected, registries may pick their own gTLD strings and associated charters (if any), subject to a process under which ICANN can resolve conflicts and can deem certain gTLD strings out of bounds. (Of course, there must be some careful thought as to how ICANN should ensure that chartered gTLDs do not ignore their charter without ICANN, itself, becoming unduly engaged in the regulation or management of chartered registries). Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. www.cyberspaces.org rod@cyberspaces.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:31:03 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU At 10:19 PM 2/12/00 -0500, 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 > Unless I'm mistaken (I don't have all my files here), we're still operating under Amendment 11 to the Cooperative Agreement, which provides: >>>> NSI agrees to continue to function as the administrator for the primary root server for the root server system and as a root zone dministrator until such time as the USG instructs NSI in writing to transfer either or both of these functions to NewCo or a specified alternate entity. While NSI continues to operate the primary root server, it shall request written direction from an authorized USG official before making or rejecting any modifications, additions or deletions to the root zone file. Such direction will be provided within ten (10) working days and it may instruct NSI to process any such changes directed by NewCo when submitted to NSI in conformity with written procedures established by NewCo and recognized by the USG. <<<<<<<< There are other agreements contemplating *eventual* transfer of authority over the root to ICANN, but that hasn't happened yet -- for now, the US government has formal legal authority (or, in Dave's terminology, de jure power) over any "modifications, additions or deletions" to the root. I don't think that's a major obstacle. I know Becky Burr and the USG bureaucracy pretty well, and I'm confident that it would not bounce a plan for new TLDs that made it through the ICANN process. The hard part, rather, is *getting* a plan for new TLDs through the ICANN process. Jon >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: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:37:37 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] where we go from here, redux Three items. 1. About three weeks ago, I posted a proposed list of policy issues that ICANN needs to resolve before new gTLDs can be deployed, and I asked:=20 "What items am I leaving off? Are there other ways to describe these points that would be cleaner, more precise, or easier to understand?"=20 Nobody said anything. If I don't hear anything within the next couple of days, I'll assume that the list has the approval of the working group - -- so speak now if there's something on it we should change, or add. If we've settled on a list, I'll try to put together a chart that sets out, for each of the questions, the positions expressed in the position papers and the comments. I figure that might be helpful in allowing us to hammer out positions (or succinct explanations of our disagreements, or explanations of why we're staying mum) on the specific issues. Here's the list again: >>>> 1. What process should ICANN use to select new gTLD registries? 2. What minimum qualifications must a gTLD registry have? In particular, must it be a nonprofit entity? 3. 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?) 4. What process should ICANN use to select new gTLD strings? (By wording the question this way, I don't mean to foreclose the answer urged in Position Paper B that ICANN should leave the choice of new gTLDs to the new registries =97 I'm treating that as one possible selection mode.) 5. What characteristics must a new gTLD have? In particular, must it have a "charter" reflecting a specialized purpose? 6. What rules should be in place regarding access to registrant data? Should ICANN mandate minimum information that a registrant must=20 provide? If so, what should that information be? Should it mandate the manner=20 in which registry or registrars in new gTLDs should make that information available? Should there be a centralized database? 7. What further conditions relating to trademark-domain name issues,=20 if any, should be satisfied before new gTLDs are introduced? In particular, should ICANN postpone the introduction of new gTLDs until after completing its deliberations on the "famous marks" issue currently before WG-B -- and, assuming it decides in favor of new famous-mark rules, implementing those rules? 8. How should ICANN proceed with the initial deployment of new gTLDs? How large should that rollout be? (We've already reached some tentative conclusions on this point.) <<<<<<<< 2. As promised, I'm putting together a document now that explains the thinking (and sets out pros and cons) behind the conclusions that have already gained the support of WG "rough consensus," on the desirability of new gTLDs and the nature of the initial rollout, and I'll post it to the list for comments and redrafting. 3. Kent wrote, a few days ago, that it would have been useful for us to develop "a document that described options, instead of positions" -- in particular, a reference model "detailing different possible structures for the ICANN-registry-registrar relationship," and describing "all the possible models for what a 'registry' could be." Sounds good to me.=20 Kent, would you be willing to serve on a small committee to develop such a document? Are there any other volunteers? Jon Jonathan Weinberg co-chair, WG-C weinberg@msen.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 22:17:47 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] where we go from here, redux - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > 2. What minimum qualifications must a gTLD registry have? In > particular, > must it be a nonprofit entity? I object to this question. I believe that it should be worded: 2. What minimum qualifications must a gTLD registry have? > 4. What process should ICANN use to select new gTLD strings? I object to the wording of this question, as it is leading, despite your clarification (which is, of course, not part of the question). It implies that ICANN makes the selection. I suggest, rather: 4. By what process should new gTLD strings be selected? > 3. Kent wrote, a few days ago, that it would have been useful >for us to develop "a document that described options, instead of >positions" -- in particular, a reference model "detailing different >possible structures for the ICANN-registry-registrar relationship," >and describing "all the possible models for what a 'registry' could >be." Sounds good to me. Kent, would you be willing to serve on a >small >committee to develop such a document? Are there any other >volunteers? Sure. Christopher - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use Comment: Signed and Encrypted EMail preferred. Fnord. iQA/AwUBOKeeC8kU7GoO9fgUEQKRHwCbBdyJ4tUCSJm+he5mveVmwA+48vgAoMS5 +Mh3nWYqjRLt8nU3Cmh/Gfum =u8Ey - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #10 *************************