From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #19 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Thursday, February 24 2000 Volume 01 : Number 019 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:53:49 -0800 (PST) From: Rick H Wesson Subject: RE: [wg-c] Specific Implementation Proposal: [Was:Re: nineprinciplesfor domain names] Kevin, On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Kevin J. Connolly wrote: > I know because (1) even tho' the CORE SRS is "open source," CORE's software is NOT opensource and to date they have not made a public release of their client or their message format. NSI has made the RRP protocol version 1.1.0 public as an Informational RFC now available as an Internet Draft at ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-rrp-01.txt there is *no* need to sign an NDA to read the draft! - -rick ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 08:54:48 -0800 From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Dave > Crocker > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 8:24 AM > To: cambler@iodesign.com > Cc: wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: RE: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names > > > At 08:04 AM 2/23/2000 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote: > >Dave Said... > > >registry assert ownership rights over the name, but that is not the > > >history of the DNS, nor is it an appropriate model. > > > >That is your opinion. I, and many others, do not share it. Please stop > >presenting it as fact, as that is not constructive to the discussion. > > If you are claiming that it IS in the history of the DNS, please > document it. > > If you are objecting to the latter clause, please state the basis for > declaring it unacceptable to have opinions stated, especially when in > response to a specific proposal. > > Remember that I was responding to a proposal to have registries do the > choosing. How is it "not constructive" to respond to that specific? It wasn't the statement that was a problem. It is the presumption, on your part, that they were a foregone conclusion. I also find this objectionable and not constructive. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 18:21:53 +0100 From: Dave Crocker Subject: RE: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names At 08:45 AM 2/23/2000 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote: > >If you are claiming that it IS in the history of the DNS, please > document it. > >As soon as you can take .com from NSI, we'll talk. Or you can try to Evidently you are unaware that quite a few registry assignments have been changed by IANA over the years. That includes moving com/net/org from its original registry of *8* years' standing (SRI). So there is well-established precedent. At 08:54 AM 2/23/2000 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote: > > >Dave Said... > > > >registry assert ownership rights over the name, but that is not the > > > >history of the DNS, nor is it an appropriate model. > >It wasn't the statement that was a problem. It is the presumption, on your >part, that they were a foregone conclusion. I also find this objectionable >and not constructive. Stating that something is (in)appropriate comments on the goodness of a thing -- that is, commenting upon its nature. Stating that something is a forgone conclusion comments on its likelihood -- that is, whether it is likely to happen in the future.. Goodness and likelihood are entirely independent semantic constructs. As a consequence, I'll ask you to identify what part of my statement stated or implied anything about likelihood. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:34:06 -0800 From: "Josh Elliott" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Request .eur or .euro You will get your chance once the procedures for obtaining new gTLDs is in place. Discussion about the substance, need, or legitimacy of your application on this list is really not appropriate. Thanks. Josh > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Edler > & Nebel Softwareentwicklung > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 12:43 AM > To: wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: [wg-c] Request .eur or .euro > > > Ladies and Gentlemen! > > We would like to introduce ourselves as a non-governmental work group > concerned with the presentation and marketing of the commercial and > cultural contents of the internet within the European Union. > > Being the representatives of this particular group, we would like to > write to you with the following request: > > We came to the conclusion that it would be extremely helpful to have a > gTLD '.eur' or '.euro' in order to be able to exploit the possibilities > of the internet to it's maximum extent. > > > Let us explain our general ideas and concepts: > We would set up a network of the European companies and organisations in > dot eur (there's already high demand, as you would expect). Every > participant would be encouraged to present all contents in both English > and native language, as most companies already do that are aware of a > common Europe. > > Our vision would be a virtual market where on the one hand the European > Union is presented as an unity but on the other hand, every state has > it's own sites, all available under dot eur with features like search > engines and links to the former ccTLD locations. > > Any responses on the probability as to have such a top level domain > created, would be very much appreciated. If you and ICANN would support > this request and create the TLD, a new company would be started for the > administration and maintenance of the registry. > > Yours faithfully > > > Alexander Edler > > Edler & Nebel Softwareentwicklung > Puntigamerstraße 4, 8041 Graz-Liebenau > AUSTRIA - EUROPE > Tel.: +43 316 425661 Fax: +43 316 425751 > > en-software@edler.at > > __________________________________________ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:42:19 -0500 From: "Kevin J. Connolly" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Request .eur or .euro I feel compelled to note that it is wrong for any member of this WG to reply to the original note in a manner which suggests that the reply is in any manner authoritative. ICANN makes decisions relating to the management of the root. This WG advises ICANN with respect to certain aspects of GTLDs. Our Charter does not enable the WG as a whole authoritatively to address a request for the delegation of a pan-European TLD, and there is even less occasion for any member of the WG to do so. >>> "Josh Elliott" 02/23/00 12:34PM >>> You will get your chance once the procedures for obtaining new gTLDs is in place. Discussion about the substance, need, or legitimacy of your application on this list is really not appropriate. Thanks. Josh > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Edler > & Nebel Softwareentwicklung > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 12:43 AM > To: wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: [wg-c] Request .eur or .euro > > > Ladies and Gentlemen! > > We would like to introduce ourselves as a non-governmental work group > concerned with the presentation and marketing of the commercial and > cultural contents of the internet within the European Union. > > Being the representatives of this particular group, we would like to > write to you with the following request: > > We came to the conclusion that it would be extremely helpful to have a > gTLD '.eur' or '.euro' in order to be able to exploit the possibilities > of the internet to it's maximum extent. > > > Let us explain our general ideas and concepts: > We would set up a network of the European companies and organisations in > dot eur (there's already high demand, as you would expect). Every > participant would be encouraged to present all contents in both English > and native language, as most companies already do that are aware of a > common Europe. > > Our vision would be a virtual market where on the one hand the European > Union is presented as an unity but on the other hand, every state has > it's own sites, all available under dot eur with features like search > engines and links to the former ccTLD locations. > > Any responses on the probability as to have such a top level domain > created, would be very much appreciated. If you and ICANN would support > this request and create the TLD, a new company would be started for the > administration and maintenance of the registry. > > Yours faithfully > > > Alexander Edler > > Edler & Nebel Softwareentwicklung > Puntigamerstraße 4, 8041 Graz-Liebenau > AUSTRIA - EUROPE > Tel.: +43 316 425661 Fax: +43 316 425751 > > en-software@edler.at > > __________________________________________ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html ********************************************************************** The information contained in this electronic message is confidential and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections, and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com- munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi- cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:00:35 -0500 (EST) From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: RE: [wg-c] Request .eur or .euro It is certainly true that this WG makes recommendations only. I nonetheless agree with Josh that discussion of Mr. Edler's proposal on this list is not appropriate. I have e-mailed Mr. Edler privately that before he proceeds further to solicit support for his plan, it would be helpful for him to review the European Commission's working paper on Creation of the .EU Internet Top Level Domain Name, available (in various languages) at . Jon Jonathan Weinberg co-chair, WG-C weinberg@msen.com On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Kevin J. Connolly wrote: > I feel compelled to note that it is wrong for any member of this > WG to reply to the original note in a manner which suggests > that his reply is in any manner authoritative. ICANN makes > decisions relating to the management of the root. This WG > advises ICANN with respect to certain aspects of GTLDs. Our > Charter does not enable the WG as a whole authoritatively to > address a request for the delegation of a pan-European TLD, > and there is even less occasion for any member of the WG to > do so. > > >>> "Josh Elliott" 02/23/00 12:34PM >>> > You will get your chance once the procedures for obtaining new gTLDs is in > place. Discussion about the substance, need, or legitimacy of your > application on this list is really not appropriate. > > Thanks. > > Josh > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Edler > > & Nebel Softwareentwicklung > > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 12:43 AM > > To: wg-c@dnso.org > > Subject: [wg-c] Request .eur or .euro > > > > > > Ladies and Gentlemen! > > > > We would like to introduce ourselves as a non-governmental work group > > concerned with the presentation and marketing of the commercial and > > cultural contents of the internet within the European Union. > > > > Being the representatives of this particular group, we would like to > > write to you with the following request: > > > > We came to the conclusion that it would be extremely helpful to have a > > gTLD '.eur' or '.euro' in order to be able to exploit the possibilities > > of the internet to it's maximum extent. > > > > > > Let us explain our general ideas and concepts: > > We would set up a network of the European companies and organisations in > > dot eur (there's already high demand, as you would expect). Every > > participant would be encouraged to present all contents in both English > > and native language, as most companies already do that are aware of a > > common Europe. > > > > Our vision would be a virtual market where on the one hand the European > > Union is presented as an unity but on the other hand, every state has > > it's own sites, all available under dot eur with features like search > > engines and links to the former ccTLD locations. > > > > Any responses on the probability as to have such a top level domain > > created, would be very much appreciated. If you and ICANN would support > > this request and create the TLD, a new company would be started for the > > administration and maintenance of the registry. > > > > Yours faithfully > > > > > > Alexander Edler > > > > Edler & Nebel Softwareentwicklung > > Puntigamerstraße 4, 8041 Graz-Liebenau > > AUSTRIA - EUROPE > > Tel.: +43 316 425661 Fax: +43 316 425751 > > > > en-software@edler.at > > > > > > __________________________________________ > NetZero - Defenders of the Free World > Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at > http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html > > ********************************************************************** > The information contained in this electronic message is confidential > and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work > product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections, > and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of > this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com- > munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi- > cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk > at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com > ********************************************************************** > Jonathan Weinberg weinberg@msen.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:24:58 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] forwarded for Eric Menge >From: Eric.Menge@sba.gov >Subject: Roundtable on Small Businesses and the Internet Domain Names System >Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:47:44 -0500 > >Office of Advocacy >U.S. Small Business Administration > >Roundtable Discussion >on the >Small Business Impact of Changes to the Internet Domain Name System > >The Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration, invites you to a >roundtable discussion on the impact on small business of proposed changes to >the Internet Domain Name system. > >The roundtable will address two topics: > >(1) What will the impact be on small businesses e-commerce of proposed >additions of new top level domains? Specifically, what is the value of a >general-purpose top level domain (.com, .net., or .org) versus a >limited-purpose top level domain (.auto, .travel, or .plumber)? Also, what >is the small business impact of restrictions on new registries? > >(2) Will protection for famous trademarks detrimentally impact small >businesses? What protections balance the trademark holder's rights with the >ability of small businesses to compete in e-commerce? > >Further background on these two topics will be provided in a separate >e-mail. > >The roundtable is scheduled for March 1 from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. with a break >between the discussion of the two topics. > >The roundtable will be held at the U.S. Small Business Administration's >Washington offices located at 409 Third St., S.W. Directions for both >driving and the Washington Metro system will be provided in a separate >e-mail. > >The Office of Advocacy is also pleased to provide a teleconference bridge to >those parties interested in small business e-commerce that cannot attend in >person. This service will be provided via a toll-free number. The number >and passcode will be provided in a separate e-mail. > >If you are interested in attending, please notify Eric Menge whether you >will be doing so in person or by telephone at 202-205-6949 or at >eric.menge@sba.gov. Advocacy would appreciate all interested parties to >respond by close of business February 28. > > >-- >Eric Menge >Office of Advocacy >U.S. Small Business Administration >(202) 205-6949; eric.menge@sba.gov >www.sba.gov/advo ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:38:58 -0800 From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Specific Implementation Proposal: [Was:Re: nineprinciplesfordomain names] You meant "not any more" ... right? > -----Original Message----- > From: Rick H Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 8:54 AM > To: Kevin J. Connolly > Cc: wg-c@dnso.org; rmeyer@mhsc.com > Subject: RE: [wg-c] Specific Implementation Proposal: [Was:Re: > nineprinciplesfordomain names] > > > > Kevin, > > On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Kevin J. Connolly wrote: > > > I know because (1) even tho' the CORE SRS is "open source," > > CORE's software is NOT opensource and to date they have not made a public > release of their client or their message format. NSI has made the RRP > protocol version 1.1.0 public as an Informational RFC now available as an > Internet Draft at > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hollenbeck-rrp-01.txt > > there is *no* need to sign an NDA to read the draft! > > -rick > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:36:51 -0500 From: Milton Mueller Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names Now THAT is something we can agree on! Philip Sheppard wrote: > we envisage a system whereby the applicant registry proposes a gTLD and > explains what they envisage for that gTLD. The registry describes the market > they seek to attract. They describe the value added they are proposing for > the DNS. Such description should be concise and unburdensome for the > registry. This is the most fair and sensible way to proceed. It is fair because anyone can apply and all proposals have equal standing -- unlike dredging up the old CORE/IAHC proposals. But the proposed method does not prevent CORE and its backers from proposing to run ONE of the new TLDs. It is sensible because it is registry-driven, and therefore taps into the creativity of the businesses and organizations out there that are surely brimming with interesting ideas to propose -- as opposed to letting a central committee decide what the world wants. It ought to make the TM people happy because, at least for the first 6-10, ICANN will have the discretion to avoid selecting new TLDs that are most problematical from that standpoint. But a registry-application process is one that sets a good precedent for moving forward, a precedent that does not disturb those of us who might differ with the TM lobby on how new TLDs might evolve in the future. It is an extensible solution. - --MM ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:53:32 -0500 From: Milton Mueller Subject: Re: [wg-c] Our mission This is a disappointing follow-on. Philip Sheppard wrote: > The rallying call of 6-10 names of which Milton has reminded us is a little > overstated When you spoke in your last message of "a system whereby the applicant registry proposes a gTLD and explains what they envisage for that gTLD" what did you mean, if not that organizations can apply for a specific number of new TLD authorizations? What is so scary about calling for applications for 10 new TLDs in this way? 6-10 is a trivial number. We added more than 30 new TLDs to the root in 1997 -- did anyone notice? You have to start somewhere. > (and from a surprising source considering Milton's greater vision > of hundreds of names). This simply shows that some of us are willing to make major compromises to accommodate your constituency's concerns. How about some reciprocity? > The interim reports states "the working group had > reached rough (although by no means unanimous) consensus" by which it refers > to 19 for and 7 against. No. Perhaps you were not around but when the original consensus was challenged by Mike Heltzer of INTA we held a formal vote and the result was something like 45 to 20. There's no question that there is a 2/3 majority or more in favor of 6-10. The only question is whether certain constituencies will respect that consensus. > The choice of a specific number of gTLDs is laced with a set of assumptions > (and implied future exclusions) about the future DNS which the interim > report did not satisfactorily explore most notably the consequences of > failure of the test - "Sorry guys here's your money back we are withdrawing > all these 6 from the DNS". The absence of a choice of a specific number of new TLDs is laced with an even stronger assumption about the future of DNS, namely that there shall be none. > How many is the wrong question for this group and it is regrettably that it > was in the groups overly-ambitious terms of reference. Philip, one cannot add new TLDs without specifying how many, unless one believes, like me and many others, that there should be no limit at all. Have you joined our camp? If not, be honest with us and tell us how many you expect to authorize. - --MM ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:53:55 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I refuse to define the word "is" for you. (for the non-US participants, I'm telling Dave that I refuse to get into an argument over semantics with him, as that would be both unproductive and annoy the pig.) - - -- Christopher Ambler - PGP Public Key: http://www.ambler.net/Chris - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use Comment: Signed and Encrypted EMail preferred. Fnord. iQA/AwUBOLSPM8kU7GoO9fgUEQJ8rgCg3ce6E4oV4RpS6DQwLSmO0OCfi/MAn2e1 8hAxPYylJrdpHrWjnsXiN90M =fwGx - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:02:30 +0100 From: Dave Crocker Subject: RE: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names At 05:53 PM 2/23/2000 -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote: >I refuse to define the word "is" for you. Claiming that someone said something, vastly different from what they actually said, is hardly a small matter of semantics. However that's fine, Chris, you needn't pursue the misunderstanding created by Roeland. So, how about responding to the factual matter of registry transfer history? That is a topic that YOU seem confused about and is rather more than a question of semantics. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:58:42 +0100 From: "Philip Sheppard" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names Thank you Eric for the analysis of the revised set of principles. Your insight is helpful. 1. Classification of the principles This was originally proposed by Karl Auerbach and your amendments which make explicit the implied registrar role will be adopted. Also following Karl's comments, your point on technical constraints was covered in the preamble to the principles: "subject to current technical constraints and evolving technical opportunities". This point is pertinent to the findability principle. This principle may be revisited when technical improvements mean net users no longer use the domain name for this purpose. These are principles for today and today findability is poor. 2. You make a lot of play of two national opinions (the White and USDoC papers). These are of course relevant vis a vis ICANN but we should be careful in interpreting their "sense" for the globe. Thank you for your clarification that the principles on competition, diversity and multiplicity are indeed within the sense of these papers. 3. Rejecting the principles because they do not apply to .com is a little harsh. I hope that we are trying to learn from the errors of .com not accommodate those errors. 4. You reject the differentiation principle as you believe this would prevent "direct competition" with .com. Effective competition with .com will not be achieved with .com2. Dot com has first mover advantage and brand equity. A .com2 will be second-rate. NSI would be very happy with such a puny competitor. Effective competition is achieved in any marketplace when the new entrant offers value added over the existing players. Value added is not achieved by duplication. Differentiation is what .com lacks and differentiation will be the source of effective competition in the DNS. It is likely this principle is absolutely within the sense of the White and DoC papers. 5. Semantics. I agree this point of all may be the most debated. Our sense in drafting it is based on a belief that gTLDs are seen as having a global character. So there is a responsibility for each gTLD to not view itself as an island, but as a part of a greater whole. We expect there to be a large number of non-commercial gTLDs for diverse cultural groups. The languages or characters used in the web pages of those groups (or even the sub-domains) will be determined by the group. But we believe the gTLD itself will be better integrated with all other gTLDs if the set of languages for all gTLDs is limited. Creating exclusive, esoteric gTLDs seems to be out of step with a system of global communication. 6. Simplicity. We must be doing something right. The registrars told us that the principles could be seen as a bureaucratic burden. Eric, tells us that we are being too liberal. The key word in the principle is "overly". We recognise, like Eric, there will have to be some burden and we simply caution against this being too severe. Philip ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:46:57 +0100 From: "Philip Sheppard" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Our mission Milton Thank you for your support to our envisaged model for the application of these principles. I agree I was being harsh on the 6-10 new gTLDs issue. I also agree with you if you were saying that these 6-10 should indeed be tested against the principles via the process mentioned. My alarm is that they will be the subject of a decision from on high such as the IAHC set. Coming from the brands people (as distinct from the IP legal community) we do see desirability in competition created through hundreds of new gTLDs each with value added. The desire of the IP world to limit numbers stems from a concern that hundreds of new domains created ad hoc will reduce consumer confidence as opportunities for good faith and bad faith disputes grow exponentially. The principles are an attempt to allow growth that adds to net user confidence. Is this the common ground for WG C ? A set of 6-10 tested against the principles and proposed by putative Registries? Philip ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 11:30:18 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] Re: nine principles for domain names Sigh. Cutting to what I comprehend from this ... > 2. You make a lot of play of two national opinions (the White and USDoC > papers). These are of course relevant vis a vis ICANN but we should be Let me know when you've an alternate authoritative source for alterations to the DNS root at the a server. ... > 4. You reject the differentiation principle as you believe this would > prevent "direct competition" with .com. Effective competition with .com > will not be achieved with .com2. Expand (one time only please) on the provability of your assertion that sufficiently effective competition cannot be mounted against .COM. ... Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:17:26 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] straw poll update, possible consensus calls, and our mission Reminder: The deadline for responding to the straw poll is midnight UTC following Friday, Feb. 25. That's 1 am Saturday morning Central European Time, 7 pm TOMORROW on the U.S. East Coast, and 4 pm TOMORROW on the U.S. West Coast. So far, 22 people have submitted ballots. Some of the results, so far, are pretty striking. (1) There is a strong majority in favor of the proposition that ICANN should play some part in choosing the new gTLDs. That is, a strong majority of the respondents, so far, *reject* the proposition that ICANN should choose registries wholly without regard to the gTLDs that the registries propose to run, and then should allow the registries to pick their own names and associated charters. (2) There is a narrower majority in favor of the proposition that the initiative, in selecting the new gTLDs, should come from the registries themselves. That is, a majority of the respondents, so far, *reject* the proposition that ICANN should first select the new gTLDs, and only then solicit applications from registries to operate those gTLDs. These two results, so far, suggest that the only recommendation that has any chance of winning rough consensus in the WG is the one recently urged by Sheppard and Mueller, under which registries apply describing their proposed TLD, and an ICANN body or process makes selections taking into account the characteristics of both the registry and its proposed TLD. If these results hold up through the end of the voting period, I'll issue a consensus call based on that proposal. It's not the case that all, or even most, of the straw poll voters so far have supported this result; the ballots are too splintered. But I think the votes so far make plain, as a predictive matter, that *if* we are to reach consensus on this issue, this proposal offers our only chance of doing so. (3) There is also a strong majority, so far, in favor of the proposition that the process should have room for both limited-purpose TLDs (which have a charter that meaningfully limits who can register there) and general-purpose TLDs (which have an "open" charter that does not significantly restrict registration in that TLD, or, perhaps, have no charter at all). That is, a strong majority of the folks responding to Questions One and Two answered either that ICANN should select such a mix or that the registries should choose their own names and charters, which would in turn ensure such a mix. If this result holds up through the end of the voting period, I'll issue a separate consensus call based on that result. Keep those cards and letters coming. All this suggests that Philip may be exactly right when he suggests, as a model for the initial rollout, that "the common ground for WG C [is a] set of 6-10 . . . proposed by putative Registries." I think we're not currently at the point where the common ground includes an understanding that the proposals be "tested against the principles." So far at least, it seems to me that the principles have drawn more negative comments on this list than positive ones. I can't rule out, though, that that situation might change. Jon Jonathan Weinberg co-chair, WG-C weinberg@msen.com ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #19 *************************