From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #32 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Sunday, March 12 2000 Volume 01 : Number 032 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 18:32:28 -0800 (PST) From: Patrick Greenwell Subject: Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: WG-C Report On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 david@aminal.com wrote: > > > > "Registries would apply describing > > their proposed TLD, and an ICANN body or process would make selections > > taking into account the characteristics of both the registry and its > > proposed TLD." > > FWIW, this statement has my support. > Has anyone considered asking the community what TLDs are most desireable and putting bids out to run those TLDs? /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell Earth is a single point of failure. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 11:24:23 +0900 From: "Robert F. Connelly" Subject: Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: WG-C Report At 16:40 10-03-2000 -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > (That said, only seven (!) people so far have cast votes on the > consensus call. Dear Jonathan: I believe I voted in favor of your position in your 5 March "consensus call". If not, I concur. I believe I wrote just to you, not to the list. Regards, BobC ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 19:05:19 -0800 (PST) From: Rick H Wesson Subject: Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: WG-C Report Patrick, On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Patrick Greenwell wrote: > Has anyone considered asking the community what TLDs are most desireable > and putting bids out to run those TLDs? > while that might bring intersting results IMHO it would be GOOD to start discussion how folks will expect operational issues to work. We don't want to have a 1:1 raitio of new gTLDs and protocols that the Registrars have to implement to allocate names in the new name spaces. There also operational issues on who manages the roots that serve up these new gTLDs. I don't expect the potential registrars to bring to the table the resources NSI Registrar did, especially the NDA part of things! regards, - -rick ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 21:29:46 -0800 From: Justin McCarthy Subject: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALL Justin McCarthy supports the following statement on how new TLDs will be introduced, given that what constitutes desirable registry characteristics is made clear in advance of any deliberation process. - ----- Original Message ----- Registries would apply describing their proposed TLD, and an ICANN body or process would make selections taking into account the characteristics of both the registry and its proposed TLD. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 21:54:20 -0800 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALL -- selecting the gTLDs in the initial rollout On Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 06:28:52PM -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > reflect perceptions within the working group -- suggest the only approach > with a chance of winning rough consensus in the WG for selecting the gTLDs > in the initial rollout is the one recently urged by Sheppard and Mueller: > > Registries would apply describing their proposed TLD, and an ICANN body or > process would make selections taking into account the characteristics of > both the registry and its proposed TLD. This is an extraordinarily bad proposal. It would be perfectly reasonable for some group headed by, for example, Jamie Love, to propose a TLD, and contract with an already established registry (say Nominet, or maybe even NSI) to operate the registry for them. This proposal precludes such a possibility. Of course, one could get out of this difficulty by simply saying that anyone who proposes a TLD is a registry, by definition -- that would be easy to live with. However, somehow the unglamorous work of simply nailing down definitions never got done. > I'm putting that plan forward as a consensus call, and I strongly urge all > of you to support it. I'm not making that call because I think this is the > overwhelming best result on the merits (though I think it's a pretty good > one). I strongly urge people not to support it, because it is an extraordinarily bad idea. There is absolutely no reason to restrict proposals of TLD names to registries alone. Whatever approval process there is for TLDs should accept proposals from anyone, and the proposals should be evaluated on their merits. There are many many registries already capable of providing production quality registration services, and adding a TLD to an already existing registry is a very minor matter. This proposal severely restricts the possibilities for TLD choices, and shuts out a whole variety of creative possibilities, and THERE IS NO GOOD REASON FOR SUCH A RESTRICTION. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 22:38:58 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: WG-C Report - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10-Mar-2000 Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote: > > "Registries would apply describing >> their proposed TLD, and an ICANN body or process would make selections >> taking into account the characteristics of both the registry and its >> proposed TLD." > > I vote yes on this consensus call. > > Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. > www.cyberspaces.org > rod@cyberspaces.org I also vote yes, Jonathon. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE4yeoC8zLmV94Pz+IRAvABAJ48zrnNQ5s7ED+u7/LvL99RTUAHOgCg4VvE F0kDHvu3dpx2sG00na7FRV8= =Lriv - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 22:54:52 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: WG-C Report Image Online Design feels that if its 15,000+ paid domain registrants in over 70 countries worldwide are any indication, that .web is desirable. Should it come to a bid process, I suspect we'd play along accordingly. Christopher - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Greenwell" To: Cc: Sent: Friday, 10 March, 2000 18:32 Subject: Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: WG-C Report > On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 david@aminal.com wrote: > > > > > > > > "Registries would apply describing > > > their proposed TLD, and an ICANN body or process would make selections > > > taking into account the characteristics of both the registry and its > > > proposed TLD." > > > > FWIW, this statement has my support. > > > > Has anyone considered asking the community what TLDs are most desireable > and putting bids out to run those TLDs? > > > /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ /\ > Patrick Greenwell > Earth is a single point of failure. > \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ \/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 23:00:06 -0800 (PST) From: Patrick Greenwell Subject: Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: WG-C Report On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Christopher Ambler wrote: > Image Online Design feels that if its 15,000+ paid domain > registrants in over 70 countries worldwide are any indication, > that .web is desirable. Should it come to a bid process, I > suspect we'd play along accordingly. Although I should have offered initially, I will do so now: my suggestion pertains only to those TLDs that are not the subject of legal/trademark dispute. Attempting introduction of any TLD that is currently embroiled in such a dispute could result in liability issues for any number of parties... /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell Earth is a single point of failure. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 00:26:20 -0800 From: Justin McCarthy Subject: [wg-c] WG-C Report What this newcomer doesn't like about the report is the blatant inequities that come to light in the section entitled "Arguments opposing the consensus" in coverage of the first issue of rough consensus. Just the nomenclature of this section alone undermines consensus opposing viewpoints. The bifurcation of the two arguments sections into a "pro" and "con" format, lead one to believe that equal representation is going to be given to "arguments supporting" and "arguments opposing". This is not the case. The arguments supporting the consensus position are made eloquently and passionately, and are fully expanded on. The arguments opposing weakly state a point and then immediately knock the point down. This doesn't seem balanced because, first of all, there's no (immediate) refute to each point brought up in the arguments in the support section and second, why should all of these refutations (which take up more text space than the actual arguments) even be in a section titled "arguments opposing consensus"? The net effect is to weaken the argument of the report by making it seem unbalanced or biased. The opportunity to build ethos by fully understanding/mastering the opposing argument is neglected here. By the same token, there's an apparent contradiction that I feel compelled to point out. In paragraph #3 of the "Arguments Supporting" section of the first rough consensus issue, the report seems to be advocating new TLDs. This is, the report argues, so that new companies that desire the same word/phrase.com can compete through same word/phrase at a different TLD. In the paragraph after the next (#5) of that same section, the report argues against the rampant registrations of country TLDs because they are creating trademark infringement issues. Why would the introduction of secondary TLDs not invoke the same trademark issues? Perhaps the unique specificity/functionality of the newly proposed TLDs and the new, more selective registration/provable charter method need to be emphasized more here. Other than that (Mrs. Lincoln), I think this is a good report. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 09:16:59 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Re: [wg-c] WG-C Report 1. It's true that the report devotes more space to why new gTLDs *should* be created than to why they should not; that's because the report is an explanation of why the WG believes that the arguments favoring new gTLDs are sound and important, and that those opposing them are unsound or in any event less weighty. After I presented each argument opposing new gTLDs, I tried to explain why the WG didn't find that argument convincing (I think we'd be derelict in our duty if we*didn't* include those explanations). If there are specific ways in which the descriptions of the arguments opposing new gTLDs should be reworded, in order to make them represent the arguments more fairly, please submit them. 2. I think there may be some confusion on the trademark points Justin notes. The report notes that an advantage of adding new TLDs is that it presents the opportunity for *different* entities to register the same SLD string in different TLDs. The report recognizes that this will raise important trademark issues that are properly addressed by "registry data maintenance requirements, dispute resolution mechanisms and any other device that ICANN may choose to adopt." It notes that the proliferation of open ccTLDs is problematic from a trademark standpoint, because ccTLDs aren't bound by ICANN's trademark-protective mechanisms. If there's an inconsistency there, I'm missing it. Jon At 12:26 AM 3/11/00 -0800, Justin McCarthy wrote: >What this newcomer doesn't like about the report is the >blatant inequities that come to light in the section >entitled "Arguments opposing the consensus" in coverage of >the first issue of rough consensus. Just the nomenclature of >this section alone undermines consensus opposing viewpoints. >The bifurcation of the two arguments sections into a "pro" >and "con" format, lead one to believe that equal >representation is going to be given to "arguments >supporting" and "arguments opposing". This is not the case. > >The arguments supporting the consensus position are made >eloquently and passionately, and are fully expanded on. The >arguments opposing weakly state a point and then immediately >knock the point down. This doesn't seem balanced because, >first of all, there's no (immediate) refute to each point >brought up in the arguments in the support section and >second, why should all of these refutations (which take up >more text space than the actual arguments) even be in a >section titled "arguments opposing consensus"? The net >effect is to weaken the argument of the report by making it >seem unbalanced or biased. The opportunity to build ethos >by fully understanding/mastering the opposing argument is >neglected here. > >By the same token, there's an apparent contradiction that I >feel compelled to point out. In paragraph #3 of the >"Arguments Supporting" section of the first rough consensus >issue, the report seems to be advocating new TLDs. This is, >the report argues, so that new companies that desire the >same word/phrase.com can compete through same word/phrase at >a different TLD. In the paragraph after the next (#5) of >that same section, the report argues against the rampant >registrations of country TLDs because they are creating >trademark infringement issues. Why would the introduction of >secondary TLDs not invoke the same trademark issues? >Perhaps the unique specificity/functionality of the newly >proposed TLDs and the new, more selective >registration/provable charter method need to be emphasized >more here. > >Other than that (Mrs. Lincoln), I think this is a good >report. > > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 16:18:46 -0500 From: "Milton Mueller" Subject: Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: WG-C Report Jon and WG C members: >"Registries would apply describing >their proposed TLD, and an ICANN body or process would make selections >taking into account the characteristics of both the registry and its >proposed TLD." I voted in favor of this consensus call but would prefer to modify my vote now. I read something into this statement which is not really there, so I would like to qualify my support with the following: I want to make it clearer that the "ICANN body or process" does not "make selections" arbitrarily or politically, but is bound to apply the principles that come out of this WG. So ADD the following: "Selections would be governed by the 7 principles formulated by WGC" - -- m i l t o n m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u syracuse university http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/ - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." To: "Jonathan Weinberg" ; Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 6:24 PM Subject: RE: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: WG-C Report > > > I vote yes on this consensus call. > > Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. > www.cyberspaces.org > rod@cyberspaces.org > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 16:25:55 -0500 From: "Milton Mueller" Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALL -- selecting the gTLDs in the initial rollout - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kent Crispin" > It would be perfectly > reasonable for some group headed by, for example, Jamie Love, to propose > a TLD, and contract with an already established registry (say Nominet, > or maybe even NSI) to operate the registry for them. This proposal > precludes such a possibility. No, it doesn't. If Jamie Love contracted with Nominet, e.g., then that would be part of a registry proposal. The fact that Love might be using an existing registry is certainly something that should be taken into account in making decisions. Therefore, the proposal MUST come from a registry capable of operating, and not simply be a floating idea for a TLD string. > Of course, one could get out of this difficulty by simply saying that > anyone who proposes a TLD is a registry, by definition -- that would be > easy to live with. One must do more than "propose" a TLD string. One must be willing to operate the registry or take responsibility for contracting with an operator, define registration criteria, etc. But anyone who does that -- as J. Love's CPT is proposing to do -- is in fact proposing to operate a registry. If you think the absence of a definition is a problem, then propose one. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 19:00:27 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: WG-C Report - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11-Mar-2000 Milton Mueller wrote: > Jon and WG C members: > >>"Registries would apply describing >>their proposed TLD, and an ICANN body or process would make selections >>taking into account the characteristics of both the registry and its >>proposed TLD." > > I voted in favor of this consensus call but would prefer to modify my vote > now. I read something into this statement which is not really there, so I > would like to qualify my support with the following: > > I want to make it clearer that the "ICANN body or process" does not "make > selections" arbitrarily or politically, but is bound to apply the > principles that come out of this WG. > > So ADD the following: "Selections would be governed by the 7 principles > formulated by WGC" This is an important distinction, and I agree it should be codified into the statement so that the statement coming from WGC to the ICANN board is clear and concise to these issues. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE4ywhL8zLmV94Pz+IRAqz5AJ9Nb4KrG8NZkeI7pWUBvk+1GcLgjACeKlZl SQMF3I8wN5BgnK/vSWni7QE= =gqPl - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #32 *************************