From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #27 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Sunday, March 5 2000 Volume 01 : Number 027 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 07:08:09 +0900 From: "Robert F. Connelly" Subject: RE: [wg-c] FW: ADNS Press Release At 10:23 03-03-2000 -0800, Josh Elliott wrote: > Are we not trying tofigure out how to accomodate this demand through the > introduction of new gTLDs in the current root system? Dear Josh: Exactly. However, the longer we futz around doing nothing, the more incentive there is to run attacks around ICANN's flanks. Regards, BobC ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 17:33:29 -0500 From: "Milton Mueller" Subject: Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: DRAFT WG-C REPORT Obviously it is incumbent upon Jon to obtain the feedback and support of the working group, but a formal vote is not necessary. There is nothing in the DNSO bylaws, the charter of this group, or any informal consensus established, that the Working Group chairs needed to have a vote to submit a report. If you disagree with aspects of the summary, please articulate them. That would be a lot more productive than raising purely procedural issues that have no standing in the WG's existing rules. If you go back to the formation of this group, some of us (myself included) advocated doing things by vote, but that position was not accepted. Instead, we accepted a kind of IETF-like approach, which gives the WG chairs broad latitude to interpret and articulate the consensus of the group. As a matter of fact, Kent was one of the advocates of that position. At the time, there were only 15-20 people in the WG, and voting on everything might have been possible. With over 100, it doesn't seem to be. No such vote took place over the interim report. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "bob broxton" To: Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2000 12:28 PM Subject: Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: DRAFT WG-C ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 17:56:48 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: DRAFT WG-C REPORT As much respect as I have for Bob, Kent and Bill, I think most of this isn't right. 1. I haven't asked for a formal vote on the report, and I agree that a formal vote would be tidier. The purpose of such a vote, though, wouldn't be to ensure that every member of the WG (all 140-odd of us) supports "everything exactly as stated in the document" — I expect that's an impossible goal, with or without a vote. The purpose of a vote would be to see whether the members of the group are sufficiently satisfied with the contents of the document to support it. So far, there have been *no* suggestions that the report misdescribes the progress and conclusions of the working group. I've gotten three comments — one on the language used to describe the testbed, one on the language used to describe .naa, and one requesting that I add a short description of the WG's ongoing work and future agenda. I'll try to address all three. (I'm happy to label the last one as my personal contribution, if folks want.) It may be that there's a whole flood of such disagreement about to emerge in the next few days, and if so, that'll be apparent on the list. But so far, there's no sign of any. And in the absence of such disagreement (that is, in the absence of a possibility that the document would fail in a vote), a vote would just ratify a consensus that's already apparent. To the extent that people *do* have problems with anything in the document, now's the time to write in and say so. I do think it's a useful idea that I insert language in the "procedural history" section of the document making clear that there was no formal vote, so as to avoid any possible confusion. 2. The short time frame is, for me, a more serious concern. One week isn't a long time for comment, as such things go, and that bothers me. My tentative view is that, under all the circumstances, it's long enough for our needs (if only barely). 3. My reasoning, in asking that separate statements be supported by five votes, was that in a large WG there might be many people who held views that have essentially no support from anyone else, and that it would constitute not-very-informative clutter if we ended up with a lot of separate statements, none of them representing a view with significant support. But I don't feel strongly about this, and I'm happy to drop it for the sake of comity. Anyone who wants to submit a separate statement can do so. (This means, Bob, that if you want to submit a separate statement objecting to the absence of a formal vote, you can do so easily.) 4. I'd like to hear what other people think on this. Jon Jonathan Weinberg co-chair, WG-C weinberg@msen.com At 12:28 PM 3/4/00 -0500, bob broxton wrote: >I feel Jon has done an excellent job in the attached document. It is concise and well >written. As I only joined Working Group C in the fall, I am assuming it is factually >correct. > >I have two recommendations of which I feel very strongly. Both these recommendations >go to procedural fairness. I want to make sure whoever receives this document >(especially the Press Corps in Cairo) is not mislead as to the nature of the >document. The two recommendations are as follows: > >1. The report should neither be labelled "Report (Part One) of Working Group C of the >Domain Name Supporting Organization, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and >Numbers" nor referred to as "This document is Part One of the Report of Working Group >C" (first sentence of the document). > >A report, in order to be labelled a report of a group, needs to have a formal vote for >adoption by that group. Working Group C has never voted to make this Working Group >C's "Report, Part One....". > >Since the report was posted on Wednesday, March 1 or Thursday, March 2 (depending on >time zone) at most seven days have been allowed for comment on the report. This means >many members of Working Group C may never have reviewed this document. Certainly this >is insufficient time to allow some members to respond with detailed, thoughtful, >comments if those members disagreed with any portions of the document. This is >especially true since this is a part-time working group in which all members have >other responsibilities. The short notice is not Jon's fault (I assume he was given >this assignment on very short notice) but it does not change the fact that the time >allowed for comments is insufficient for receiving comments on a document as important >as one labelled the "Report (Part One)..." of the entire group. > >If the head of any group issues a document and labels the document "Report (Part >One)" of the group, without ever seeking a vote on the Report from the group, this can >be terribly misleading. It implies the members of the group have adopted the report, >including everything exactly as stated in the document. What is in reality the report >of one individual on the progress of the group has the appearance of formal approval >of the group for the exact language as stated in the Report. > >As the members of Working Group C have never voted on this Report, the cover page, >heading and first sentence of this document should be changed to read: > >This is a report by the Co-Chairman of Working Group C describing the progress of >Working Group C. This is not a report of Working Group C. Working Group C has never >taken a vote approving this report. > >It is also very important that the Co-Chairman in orally presenting this document >stress at all times that this document is not the Report (Part One) of Working Group >C. This will prevent anyone from believing that this document, as worded, has been >adopted by Working Group C. > >2. The requirement to obtain five votes in order to submit a minority (dissenting ) >statement should be eliminated. If someone wants to submit a minority or dissenting >report they should be allowed to do so. To my knowledge, Working Group C has never >adopted this procedural limitation on the expressing of one's views. > >I suspect since this is a part-time working group, most members have never meet five >other members or may not have retained their e-mail addresses. Considering the >extremely short time allowed to respond to this document, the requirement to circulate >and then obtain the concurrence of five other members, effectively eliminates most >minority or dissenting opinions. This is totally unfair to any member that would like >to submit a minority or dissenting opinion. > > >Thank you very much for considering these recommendations. Again, Jon is to be >congratulated on the excellent work he has done in compiling this document. > >Bob Broxton >broxton@erols.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 19:04:11 -0500 From: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." Subject: RE: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: DRAFT WG-C REPORT While I understand Bob's concern about the desire to have adequate time to review the draft Report, it is obvious that the timing is not within the WG's control. I think Jon's statement is on target and I echo the view of others regarding the terrific work he has done for this WG. Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. www.cyberspaces.org rod@cyberspaces.org > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of > Jonathan Weinberg > Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2000 5:57 PM > To: bob broxton; wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: DRAFT WG-C REPORT > > > As much respect as I have for Bob, Kent and Bill, I think > most of this > isn't right. > > 1. I haven't asked for a formal vote on the report, and I > agree that a > formal vote would be tidier. The purpose of such a vote, though, wouldn't > be to ensure that every member of the WG (all 140-odd of us) supports > "everything exactly as stated in the document" — I expect that's an > impossible goal, with or without a vote. The purpose of a vote > would be to > see whether the members of the group are sufficiently satisfied with the > contents of the document to support it. > > So far, there have been *no* suggestions that the report > misdescribes the > progress and conclusions of the working group. I've gotten three comments > — one on the language used to describe the testbed, one on the language > used to describe .naa, and one requesting that I add a short > description of > the WG's ongoing work and future agenda. I'll try to address all three. > (I'm happy to label the last one as my personal contribution, if folks > want.) It may be that there's a whole flood of such disagreement about to > emerge in the next few days, and if so, that'll be apparent on the list. > But so far, there's no sign of any. And in the absence of such > disagreement (that is, in the absence of a possibility that the document > would fail in a vote), a vote would just ratify a consensus that's already > apparent. To the extent that people *do* have problems with anything in > the document, now's the time to write in and say so. > > I do think it's a useful idea that I insert language in the > "procedural > history" section of the document making clear that there was no formal > vote, so as to avoid any possible confusion. > > 2. The short time frame is, for me, a more serious concern. > One week > isn't a long time for comment, as such things go, and that bothers me. My > tentative view is that, under all the circumstances, it's long enough for > our needs (if only barely). > > 3. My reasoning, in asking that separate statements be > supported by five > votes, was that in a large WG there might be many people who held views > that have essentially no support from anyone else, and that it would > constitute not-very-informative clutter if we ended up with a lot of > separate statements, none of them representing a view with significant > support. But I don't feel strongly about this, and I'm happy to drop it > for the sake of comity. Anyone who wants to submit a separate statement > can do so. (This means, Bob, that if you want to submit a separate > statement objecting to the absence of a formal vote, you can do > so easily.) > > 4. I'd like to hear what other people think on this. > > Jon > > > Jonathan Weinberg > co-chair, WG-C > weinberg@msen.com > > > At 12:28 PM 3/4/00 -0500, bob broxton wrote: > >I feel Jon has done an excellent job in the attached document. It is > concise and well > >written. As I only joined Working Group C in the fall, I am assuming it > is factually > >correct. > > > >I have two recommendations of which I feel very strongly. Both these > recommendations > >go to procedural fairness. I want to make sure whoever receives this > document > >(especially the Press Corps in Cairo) is not mislead as to the > nature of the > >document. The two recommendations are as follows: > > > >1. The report should neither be labelled "Report (Part One) of Working > Group C of the > >Domain Name Supporting Organization, Internet Corporation for Assigned > Names and > >Numbers" nor referred to as "This document is Part One of the Report of > Working Group > >C" (first sentence of the document). > > > >A report, in order to be labelled a report of a group, needs to have a > formal vote for > >adoption by that group. Working Group C has never voted to make this > Working Group > >C's "Report, Part One....". > > > >Since the report was posted on Wednesday, March 1 or Thursday, March 2 > (depending on > >time zone) at most seven days have been allowed for comment on > the report. > This means > >many members of Working Group C may never have reviewed this document. > Certainly this > >is insufficient time to allow some members to respond with detailed, > thoughtful, > >comments if those members disagreed with any portions of the document. > This is > >especially true since this is a part-time working group in which all > members have > >other responsibilities. The short notice is not Jon's fault (I assume he > was given > >this assignment on very short notice) but it does not change the > fact that > the time > >allowed for comments is insufficient for receiving comments on a document > as important > >as one labelled the "Report (Part One)..." of the entire group. > > > >If the head of any group issues a document and labels the document > "Report (Part > >One)" of the group, without ever seeking a vote on the Report from the > group, this can > >be terribly misleading. It implies the members of the group have adopted > the report, > >including everything exactly as stated in the document. What is in > reality the report > >of one individual on the progress of the group has the appearance of > formal approval > >of the group for the exact language as stated in the Report. > > > >As the members of Working Group C have never voted on this Report, the > cover page, > >heading and first sentence of this document should be changed to read: > > > >This is a report by the Co-Chairman of Working Group C describing the > progress of > >Working Group C. This is not a report of Working Group C. > Working Group > C has never > >taken a vote approving this report. > > > >It is also very important that the Co-Chairman in orally presenting this > document > >stress at all times that this document is not the Report (Part One) of > Working Group > >C. This will prevent anyone from believing that this document, > as worded, > has been > >adopted by Working Group C. > > > >2. The requirement to obtain five votes in order to submit a minority > (dissenting ) > >statement should be eliminated. If someone wants to submit a > minority or > dissenting > >report they should be allowed to do so. To my knowledge, Working Group C > has never > >adopted this procedural limitation on the expressing of one's views. > > > >I suspect since this is a part-time working group, most members > have never > meet five > >other members or may not have retained their e-mail addresses. > Considering the > >extremely short time allowed to respond to this document, the requirement > to circulate > >and then obtain the concurrence of five other members, effectively > eliminates most > >minority or dissenting opinions. This is totally unfair to any member > that would like > >to submit a minority or dissenting opinion. > > > > > >Thank you very much for considering these recommendations. Again, Jon is > to be > >congratulated on the excellent work he has done in compiling > this document. > > > >Bob Broxton > >broxton@erols.com > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 21:32:16 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] forwarded for Kendall Dawson >Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 16:47:58 -0500 >To: wg-c@dnso.org >From: Kendall Dawson >Subject: DNSO Names Council Teleconference > >In the minutes from the DNSO Names Council Teleconference on February 18th, it was specifically noted by the Council: > >"It was also felt than the same questions are discussed over and over again since years, and whoever have any opinion voiced it" > >Any comments on this statement? Could it be that these questions keep coming up because no one has successfully provided a solution? Are they saying that they are tired of hearing from the Usual Suspects? I was rather surprised to see this comment - sort of an "editorial slant" - but from whom? The Names Council? Certain members of the Council? > >A special thanks to Jon for presenting the views of WG-C so well. > >Kendall > >---------------- >[cut] > > > > > From: DNSO Listadmin > > To: announce@dnso.org, ga@dnso.org > > Subject: [announce] NCtelecon 18 February 2000, results > > > > 3. Status report from WGC Co-Chair (Jonathan Weinberg) > > Jon Weinberg did a good job, and identified what are the problems. > > > > However it was also felt than the same questions are discussed over and > > over again since years, and whoever have any opinion voiced it. The > > agressive outreach for participation has been made, and should be > > documented. It is expected than after Cairo meeting an analysis of > > results will be made and put forward. During Cairo meeting the NC will > > elect the liaison co-chair for the WG-C. > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 12:06:53 -0800 From: James Love Subject: [wg-c] CPT/EI letter on TLDs Hello, this is my first post to wg-c. I work with various non-profit organizations that would like to apply for new TLDs. This is a letter I wrote to Esther Dyson about this. It is my understanding that WG-B and WG-C are working on this issue. Jamie Love http://www.cptech.org/ecom/icann/tlds-march1-2000.html John Richard Essential Information P.O. Box 19405 Washington, DC 20036 http://www.essential.org James Love Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367 Washington, DC 20036 http://www.essential.org March 1, 2000 Esther Dyson Chair Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 USA Dear Esther: This letter is to propose that Essential Information be permitted to establish a registry for new top level domains (TLDs). It is our intention to create several TLDs that would facilitate free speech and criticism, and enable consumers, workers and others to organize. Each of these TLDs will be operated under its own management charter. The particular TLDs that we propose include: .union .customers .complaints .sucks .ecology .isnotgreen .isnotfair .shareholder .taxpayer .unite Our plans for each domain are as follows: .union The .union TLD will be a "union label" for cyberspace. EI is working with the international labor union community to develop a management system for .union. Use of the domain would be restricted to bona fide labor unions. Examples of use of this TLD would include: nike.union exxon.union microsoft.union as well as other uses, such as dcprinters.union, for links to union printers in Washington, DC. EI will be holding meetings with members of the labor community to discuss the policies for the management of this domain. It is our goal to use the .union domain to strengthen union organizing efforts, and to make it easier for workers at a firm to communicate with unions that represent workers at the firm, or who are seeking to organize workers at the firm, and for unions in different countries to coordinate efforts with each other. .customers EI will create a self governance management organization for .customers. This domain will be used to create democratically managed membership organizations of the customers of particular companies. The customer organizations would be able to address any number of consumer problems. For example, ford.customers might organize to address safety, service or warranty issues on Ford automobiles. Safeway.customers might organize in favor of labeling of genetically modified foods. Bellatlantic.customers might address Bell Altantic service and pricing issues in regulatory proceedings. Bankofamerica.customers could address ATM charges and other bank fees. The .customers domain will be a cyberspace version of the "Citizens Utilities Boards" that were set up in several US states in the 1970s, funded by voluntary contributions from customers of public utilities. .complaints EI is studying different models for the use of .complaints, to give consumers specific information about mechanisms to address product or company specific complaints, and to permit customers to share information about company practices with each other. .sucks This TLD will be used to facilitate criticism of a firm or organization, such as aol.sucks, wipo.sucks, or even greenpeace.sucks. We would not permit the organization that owned an associated domain to also own .sucks, so it would expand the name space in an important way. The domain would also be available for other uses, such as work.sucks, life.sucks or television.sucks. Our plan is to create an independent non-profit free speech foundation that will be funded by fees from the .sucks registration. The Dot Sucks Foundation (http://dot.sucks) will fund Internet related free speech fights. We recognize the .sucks TLD will be offensive to some persons, but we do not think that this should exclude .sucks from being approved by ICANN. We believe the .sucks domain will be popular in the marketplace, and also generate important funding for the free speech rights of individuals and small organizations. .ecology .isnotgreen These two TLDs will be managed by environmental groups, to create forums to discuss and criticize the environmental policies of businesses, governments and other organizations. .isnotfair This TLD would be used by civil rights groups to discuss issues of discrimination or workers rights. We will be holding discussions with a variety of civil rights organizations to determine the management structure for the TLD. It is our intention to create a space where the public can quickly review a company's record on employment practices. For example, Texaco.isnotfair or coke.isnotfair might have links to information about discrimination suits involving these companies, or to organizations working on various discrimination or fairness issues. .shareholder This TLD will be used by church groups who organize shareholder suits on issues of conscience. .taxpayers The .taxpayer TLD would be given to democratically elected taxpayer organizations that would monitor budgets and management practices of governments. Examples of this TLD would include Arlington.VA.Taxpayers, Anchorage.AK.Taxpayers, London.UK.Taxpayers, Sidney.AU.Taxpayers. .unite EI is evaluating different models for the use of .unite. These are serious proposals to use the power of a TLD to enable citizens to improve civil society. We believe the creation of domains like .union, .customers, .isnotgreen, and .isnotfair will create powerful mechanisms to share information and organize. We would like to meet with the ICANN staff to discuss these proposals further. Sincerely, John Richard James Love Director Director Essential Information Consumer Project on Technology - -- ======================================================= James Love, Director | http://www.cptech.org Consumer Project on Technology | mailto:love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367 | voice: 1.202.387.8030 Washington, DC 20036 | fax: 1.202.234.5176 ======================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 16:49:43 -0800 From: James Love Subject: [wg-c] voting on TLDs In the event that only a limited number of TLDs will be authorized by ICANN, it would be possible to have at least some be allocated on the basis of a vote by the ICANN at large membership. This would be real "bottom up" governance, and it would also connect the the "Internet community." Youn might call this "by popular demand" to something, as a category, not entirely like the way newsgroups are created. This would also likely expand the ICANN membership in interesting ways. Jamie Love http://www.cptech.org love@cptech.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 14:14:38 -0800 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] voting on TLDs On Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 04:49:43PM -0800, James Love wrote: > In the event that only a limited number of TLDs will be authorized by > ICANN, it would be possible to have at least some be allocated on the > basis of a vote by the ICANN at large membership. > > This would be real "bottom up" governance, and it would also connect the > the "Internet community." Suppose 10000 new members suddenly appeared and decided to add a TLD called ".general-motors". Or maybe ".saddam". And then 30000 more people suddenly joined and voted for ".death-to-gore". Please note that the White Paper places stability of the Internet above all other concerns. The primary goal here isn't "bottom up governance" - -- the primary goal is something that actually works. Community involvement is important, but it isn't the primary issue. Moreover, in the ICANN structure it is the DNSO that is supposed to decide DNSO policy, not the at-large membership. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 17:48:07 -0500 From: Paul Garrin Subject: Re: [wg-c] voting on TLDs > > In the event that only a limited number of TLDs will be authorized by > ICANN, it would be possible to have at least some be allocated on the > basis of a vote by the ICANN at large membership. > > This would be real "bottom up" governance, and it would also connect the > the "Internet community." > > Youn might call this "by popular demand" to something, as a category, > not entirely like the way newsgroups are created. > > This would also likely expand the ICANN membership in interesting ways. > > Jamie Love > http://www.cptech.org > love@cptech.org > I support the concept of popular vote for TLDs, and to some degree Name.Space has been doing this for some time now. Most of the more than 500 new TLDs in operation by Name.Space have been suggested through public survey. An ongoing ranking of TLDs by vote and "population" is available at http://vote.global-namespace.net To bring this type of effort into a widely known public forum through ICANN will surely reinforce the intended "bottom up" qualities so often described as the intent of the ICANN process. Paul Garrin pg@name-space.com http://name-space.com ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #27 *************************