From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #11 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 011 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 09:13:12 -0500 From: Harold Feld Subject: Re: [wg-c] STRAW POLL Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > Please respond before midnight UTC following February 21, 2000. (UTC?) > > > 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*: > > > 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.) > I do not see a conflict between this and #4, but I need to pick one. It is possible to do "set asides" for chartered TLDs without "chosing a business model." In any event, I suspect we will see a mixture in any open application process. Since I'd still like to see a set aside for an individual or other "public space" TLD, I have to go with #3. > > 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*. > > > 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.) > As above. I'd like to see a decent mix in the opening "testbed" period. > 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 (please explain). I would favor a mixed approach, in which ICANN sets aside space for individual or other "public space" TLDs. *These* could be decided by comparative evaluations or other means. By contrast, "commercial" TLDs (commercial is in "" because I do not mean they must be run for profit, but that they do not fall into the reserved "non-commercial" public space catagory). On the whole, I think the more objective the criteria, the better for everyone. I am not wild about auctions, unless they have associated bidding credits for small businesses and minority ownership (are my public interest roots showing yet?). In addition, auctions should not be used unless ICANN is willing to commit to bringing new TLDs (over and above the initial 6-10) online in some definite period of time. Otherwise, the uncertainty as to the value of the new TLDs will drive up cost enormously (or potentially drive down cost, as no one will know how to accurately value the franchise). HArold ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:32:18 -0000 From: "Penman, Ian" Subject: RE: [wg-c] STRAW POLL - response WG-C STRAW POLL RESPONSE - IAN PENMAN QUESTION ONE 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 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 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. Regards Ian Penman ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 09:36:39 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: time zones (was: Re: [wg-c] STRAW POLL) At 09:13 AM 2/14/00 -0500, Harold Feld wrote: > > >Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > >> Please respond before midnight UTC following February 21, 2000. > >(UTC?) UTC is Coordinated Universal Time (or, I guess, Univeral Time Coordinated). It's what we used to call Greenwich Mean Time, not incorporating daylight savings shifts (I think); it's five hours ahead of the U.S. East Coast and one hour behind the rest of Western Europe. Jon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 07:12:58 -0800 From: "Josh Elliott" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU This discussion does seem more appropriate somewhere else. Keep in mind 3 points. The addition of a new country to the ISO 3166 list takes a very long time, and the European Union has been in the application process for 2 years. They have recently recieved a reserved code element, but that final step to be included in the 3166-1 list is a difficult one (ask Palestine, which was added this last summer). Second, once the code is added, the IANA process can take quite some time. Palestine requested the IANA delegation in October, and the code has not yet been delegated as the applicant must show it meets the requirements listed in RFC 1591. Lastly, recognize that .EU is the first regional TLD applicant, and ICANN may want to include such TLDs in a different application process. Let's be real here. Jon (and others) adopted the ISO 3166 list because it seemed like the right thing to do, but that was a long time ago, and things have definately changed. Maybe it is time to move from the mentality that everything on the 3166-1 list should automatically have a code, to something a bit more developed than a list. Just a suggestion, but something that ICANN is struggling with and will have to address in the coming months. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of > Patrick Greenwell > Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2000 10:16 AM > To: John Charles Broomfield > Cc: mueller@syr.edu; wg-c@dnso.org > 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. > \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ > \/\/\/\/\/\/ > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 07:15:03 -0800 From: "Josh Elliott" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU As Jonathan stated, DOC still holds the keys to the root, but by October of this year, the root is supposed to be transferred to ICANN. ICANN has been preparing for this transition for the last 9 months and is slowly but surely progressing this issue with DOC. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of > Joseph Friedman > Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2000 7:20 PM > To: Jonathan Weinberg > Cc: Kent Crispin; wg-c@dnso.org > 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: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 16:48:29 +0100 From: "Philip Sheppard" Subject: Re: [wg-c] STRAW POLL WG-C STRAW POLL Here follows replies of Philip Sheppard AIM. 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. BUT TAKE HEED Limit is not the right descriptive. A charter need not be a restriction! The key is not limitation but differentiation. Dot biz could be fine is it can differentiate itself from dot com. EG: It may wish to be for registered business only or for businesses who wish to trade across national borders. (See answer to Q3 for more on differentiation.) 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. BUT SEE ABOVE. The concept that 6-10 is about right is flawed. 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 The Names Council and ICANN must establish principles for domain names (a little like the criteria option you had). I propose the following principles/criteria (also under discussion in WG B and co-authored by myself and Kathy Kleiman): 1. Trust – a gTLD should give the net user confidence that it stands for what it purports to stand for. 2. Semantics – a gTLD should be meaningful in a language with a significant number of net users. 3. Findability – a gTLD should assist a net user to find a particular domain name. 4. Differentiation – a gTLD should differentiate from all other gTLDs so as not to confuse net users. 5. Honesty – a gTLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for malicious or criminal elements who wish to defraud net users. 6. Simplicity - a gTLD should not impose an overly bureaucratic procedure on a registry. 7. Competition – new gTLDs should foster competition in the domain name space. 8. Diversity - new gTLDs should foster the expression of views, both commercial and non-commercial. 9. Multiplicity - new gTLDs should become available as needed to meet the needs of an expanding Internet community. THEN, a registry proposes a new gTLD and the NC judges it against the above principles. If it passes it happens. This leads to the market proposing names it wants but there is a first-mover advantage as new names will exclude others. For example: If dot cars was accepted for "everything to do with automobiles" then another party wanting dot autos for " everything to do with automobiles" might not be accepted unless they offered something to differentiate. Philip Sheppard ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 07:58:25 -0800 From: "Josh Elliott" Subject: RE: [wg-c] STRAW POLL First off, thanks Jonathan for getting this list working again. My responses: > > 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*: #3 - I think all gTLDs should have charters. In the case of .com, .net, and .org, their charter should say. Open to any registration worldwide. There is a demand in the marketplace for some more specifically chartered TLDs, and while I wish the registries themsleves could take up these issues, I don't see how it is possible. If ICANN approved registry A, B, C and D, but all three wanted to create .EXAMPLE, who gets it? I think ICANN is the appropriate system to make those decisions, and to insure that, we need to contruct a system that is much more accountable than the current registrar accreditation system used by ICANN. I think there have been limited complaints about the system, but as one who has seen the interworkings of it, it does not have any accountability (except maybe the threat of a lawsuit). > > 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*. > #3 again. If all new gTLDs have charters, then it is imperative that open and restricted charters be tested. There will most likely be the most complications with restricted chraters than open ones. There has to be a mix. If we create 8 new TLDs, then 1-2 should be restricted in nature, and the others should probably be open. > > > 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 - I'm not sure I like any of the rest of them. I think there needs to be a combination of some of the above. In no way, do I want ICANN to give the public a list of names that should be used in the roll-out phase (or any phase for that matter). That is giving ICANN more power than is necessary in this process. However, there should be objective criteria for the applicants, and these criteria should be constructed by this WG. These objective criteria should include a charter (simply saying "open" would be a charter) as well as the registry/registrar structure being proposed (the relationships for which should already be in place and thought out) and the TLD name being requested. These criteria should be reviewed and rated by a group of people that the community trusts. Whether that is a combination of ICANN board, ICANN staff, NC members, WG-C members, independent auditors, God only knows. The 10 applicants with the highest ratings are selected for the testbed. This process should be similar to the registrar accreditation process, where the process selects the best qualified candidates for the "testbed", but the same process is used for "post-testbed" applicants. Applicants for the testbed which are not selected are given an appeal process, and many of the initial applicants are also approved for post-testbed operation as long as the testbed actually works. That is my rough thinking. It is somewhere in between some of the options listed. Please let me know what you think (I'm sure many of you will not hesitate to let me know). Thanks. Josh ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:18:53 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] nine principles for domain names Kathy -- Philip Sheppard mentioned in a recent post to WG-C that you and he had collaborated on a set of nine priciples / criteria for domain names. I want to share with you part of a longish note that I sent him a few months ago, somewhat skeptically commenting on an earlier -- and shorter -- version of the principles; I'd be interested in your thoughts. Jon - --------------- >Philip -- > > I think most of the principles are controversial to some degree, and I surely agree that they are worth discussing on the list. I'll try to explain some of my own thoughts about the principles, taking them out of sequence in order to convey my thoughts more clearly. > >"Findability — the gTLD should assist a net user to find a particular domain name." > >"Semantics — the gTLD should be meaningful in English or a language with a significant number of net users." > >"Differentiation — a gTLD should not confuse net users and so should be differentiated from all other gTLDs." > > I think that everyone on the list subscribes to a weak version of the findability principle, in that nobody would support a rule under which domain names were required to be meaningless alphanumeric sequences. For this reason, I don't think you'll get much argument on the semantics principle. The controversy here, I think, comes with regard to the question of how important findability should be in structuring the name space, and how it stacks up against other desiderata. Some list members believe that findability should be the primary concern; others take the view that the DNS is by its nature ill-suited to be used as a directory system, and that we should not try to structure the DNS to replace search engines and yet-to-be-developed directory tools. > > Specifically: If one believes in the pre-eminence of the findability principle, then presumably one would not want ICANN to create additional general-purpose TLDs. Further, one would want differentiation, so that one would not want to see more than one TLD serving any particular market. (That is, one would not want the name space to include both .sports and .athletics, b/c the user wouldn't automatically know in which one he should look for a particular sports-related domain.) Yet I don't think I agree with either of those results. It seems to me that it would be useful to have new general-purpose TLDs, to provide competition to .com. Right now, .com stands astride the name space as the dominant commercial TLD. It is the 500- pound gorilla of TLDs, and domain names in .com have tremendous (artificial) market value; companies that currently have a domain name in the form of have an extremely important marketing and name-recognition tool. They have an advantage over all other companies that do not have addresses in that form, because they are the ones that consumers, surfing the Net, will be able to find most easily. Adding a set of limited-purpose TLDs, it seems to me, would not change that: there would remain .com (and to a lesser extent .net and .org) atop the TLD pyramid, and a mass of special-purpose TLDs below. > > Alternative *general-purpose* top-level domains, by contrast, could provide effective competition to .com. With the addition of new general-purpose TLDs, shopping.com might face competition from shopping.biz and shopping.store. Those businesses will have to compete based on price, quality and service, rather than on the happenstance of which company locked up the most desirable domain name first. This would more nearly level the playing field for individuals and businesses seeking attractive domain names, and would diminish the ability of a minority of e- businesses to collect rents based simply on their registration of good names in the "best" TLD. > > With regard to limited-purpose TLDs as well, I think competition concerns cut in the opposite direction from differentiation concerns. The existence of many competing TLD registries, without regard to differentiation, will diminish the market power that any particular TLD will exercise. Users who are unimpressed with the performance of one registry can instead acquire a new domain name in a different top-level domain, run by a different registry. Imagine, thus, that the name space contains a single registry called .sports. Without more, this registry has market power corresponding to the degree that it is a better TLD for certain registrants than any other, and it can use that market power to extract inefficient rents. If, on the other hand, there are many TLDs, and relatively free entry into the TLD namespace, then the market power of the .sports registry can be constrained by the creation of .athletics. That's inconsistent with differentiation, but it think it redounds to the benefit of domain-name registrants. > > (As an aside, I don't think that the existence of TLDs whose target registrant population is substantially similar to that of other TLDs is "confusing" to Net users.) > >"Trust — the gTLD should give the net user confidence that what the name purports to stand for is actually the case." > > This is an interesting one; it applies, I assume, to limited-purpose TLDs, since general- purpose TLDs don't purport to stand for much. There are two ways, it seems to me, to set up a limited-purpose TLD. One way to have some policing body checking credentials, to ensure that each SLD applicant in fact belongs in the TLD. This has the advantage of creating "trust," in the sense that you define it above. On the other hand, it can also have disadvantages: for example, to give a trade association of industry members the authority to say whether an applicant is really a bona fide industry member and entitled to register in the TLD, creates the possibility of undesirable cartel behavior. Further, this approach may not be necessary. In the US, for example, there is almost no policing of business' choices regarding where in the Yellow Pages their telephone listing will run, and yet consumers nonetheless find the Yellow Pages quite useful — an auto repair shop has no incentive to buy a listing under "flowers." I expect that in an expanded name space, the policing model will be appropriate for some TLDs, and the unpoliced model for others. > > [rest snipped] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:40:04 -0500 From: "Winer, Jonathan" Subject: RE: [wg-c] STRAW POLL This posting strikes me as the most sensible and thought out articulation of a workable scheme yet posted on this site on this issue, providing the elements of stability, predictability, and standards which are needed to promote safety in the gTLD expansion process. > -----Original Message----- > From: Philip Sheppard [SMTP:philip.sheppard@aim.be] > Sent: Monday, February 14, 2000 10:48 AM > To: wg-c@dnso.org; Jonathan Weinberg > Subject: Re: [wg-c] STRAW POLL > > WG-C STRAW POLL > > Here follows replies of Philip Sheppard AIM. > > 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. > > BUT TAKE HEED Limit is not the right descriptive. A charter need not be a > restriction! The key is not limitation but differentiation. Dot biz could > be > fine is it can differentiate itself from dot com. EG: It may wish to be > for > registered business only or for businesses who wish to trade across > national > borders. > (See answer to Q3 for more on differentiation.) > > > 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. > > BUT SEE ABOVE. The concept that 6-10 is about right is flawed. > > 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 > The Names Council and ICANN must establish principles for domain names (a > little like the criteria option you had). I propose the following > principles/criteria (also under discussion in WG B and co-authored by > myself > and Kathy Kleiman): > 1. Trust - a gTLD should give the net user confidence that it stands for > what it purports to stand for. > 2. Semantics - a gTLD should be meaningful in a language with a > significant > number of net users. > 3. Findability - a gTLD should assist a net user to find a particular > domain > name. > 4. Differentiation - a gTLD should differentiate from all other gTLDs so > as > not to confuse net users. > 5. Honesty - a gTLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for > malicious or criminal elements who wish to defraud net users. > 6. Simplicity - a gTLD should not impose an overly bureaucratic procedure > on > a registry. > 7. Competition - new gTLDs should foster competition in the domain name > space. > 8. Diversity - new gTLDs should foster the expression of views, both > commercial and non-commercial. > 9. Multiplicity - new gTLDs should become available as needed to meet the > needs of an expanding Internet community. > > THEN, a registry proposes a new gTLD and the NC judges it against the > above > principles. If it passes it happens. > This leads to the market proposing names it wants but there is a > first-mover > advantage as new names will exclude others. For example: If dot cars was > accepted for "everything to do with automobiles" then another party > wanting > dot autos for " everything to do with automobiles" might not be accepted > unless they offered something to differentiate. > > Philip Sheppard > > 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: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:02:27 -0500 From: Milton Mueller Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU I agree with what Josh says below, especially the point about .EU taking a long time and the point about the need to update and reconsider IANA practices in the light of new developments. I still think, however, think we needed to have a *good faith* meta-discussion about how such initiatives fit into the charter of WG-C and DNSO. The articulation between these initiatives is not self-evident, and given the newness and potential fragility of DNSO processes we have to be somewhat self-conscious about the role of this WG. Hopefully we can have these discussions in a constructive manner, and of course such discussions should not distract us from our ongoing work on other types of new TLDs. So it does seem appropriate to lay it aside now and that is what I intend to do. Josh Elliott wrote: > Lastly, recognize that > .EU is the first regional TLD applicant, and ICANN may want to include such > TLDs in a different application process. Let's be real here. Jon (and > others) adopted the ISO 3166 list because it seemed like the right thing to > do, but that was a long time ago, and things have definately changed. Maybe > it is time to move from the mentality that everything on the 3166-1 list > should automatically have a code, to something a bit more developed than a > list. > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:34:20 -0500 From: Milton Mueller Subject: Re: [wg-c] STRAW POLL These comments address points made by Josh as well as Philip Philip Sheppard wrote: > 1. All new gTLDs must have charters that meaningfully limit the universe of > people who can register in those gTLDs. > > BUT TAKE HEED Limit is not the right descriptive. A charter need not be a > restriction! The key is not limitation but differentiation. Dot biz could be > fine is it can differentiate itself from dot com. Philip:This is a crucial issue for many of us. As a matter of market reality, no business is going to run a registry if it cannot differentiate the service from its competitors. What has made this a stumbling block for many of us is the question whether ICANN defines the "charter" or the marketplace defines it. If the charter is imposed top-down as a kind of contract with ICANN, then practical issues concerning how the criteria are applied and enforced arise. So I think you need to clarify your position. When you say "all TLDs must have charters" what exactly do you mean, and where do those charters come from? Josh: It may be a bit confusing terminologically to say that *any* criterion constitutes a "charter," even one like: "totally open." Most uses of the term in this discussion have used "chartered" TLD to mean restrictions associated semantically with the TLD string, such as .mil. There's nothing wrong with your usage, in fact I think it's probably better to use the term the way you are than the way it has been used. But again, it doesn't move the WG forward in the way Jon Weinberg is trying to do. Jon is trying to define positions that are clearly differentiated from each other and find out where people are on that map. If you believe that ANY tld by definition has a charter, and you select Option #3 under Question 1, your actual position may not be that different from someone who selected Option #4. You (Josh) wrote: "I wish the registries themsleves could take up these issues, I don't see how it is possible. If ICANN approved registry A, B, C and D, but all three wanted to create .EXAMPLE, who gets it? " Any proponent of Option 4 knows that registries probably will submit mutually exclusive applications. Those can be resolved in a number of ways: auctions, lotteries, merit determinations, first come first served. I support rationing methods that are non-discretionary (auctions, lotteries, FCFS) and oppose merit determinations because it turns ICANN into a politically-driven regulatory body. ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #11 *************************