From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #41 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Thursday, March 16 2000 Volume 01 : Number 041 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 15:17:31 +0900 From: "Robert F. Connelly" Subject: Re: [wg-c] about the consensus call; How do we get a degree of objectivity to come to bear on the subject? At 01:05 15-03-2000 -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > Reactions? Am I right in these late-night assessments, or is the >consensus call proposal a better one than I'm giving it credit for just >now? If I am right, is there a good (and quick) way to address (some of) >those concerns? Dear Jonathan: A wag once quipped, "Objectivity varies as the square of ones distance from the problem". Not that I agreed with the questioner, it was posed in the context that those least knowledgeable (farthest from the problem) really don't understand the issue. I think all of us know the issue ad nauseam:-{ In this case, bringing in the selection of gTLDs brings a degree of divisiveness which would keep us arguing in Pershing Square forever -- at least this bunch of us dies off. I therefore do not endorse the idea of having this group compound its problem by adding a hundred new variables to the selection process *at this time*. In fact, this group may *never* be able to come to a consensus on the actual gTLDs to be delegated. Regards, BobC ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 22:30:09 -0800 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 08:05:29PM -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote: > Dave, you can't have it both ways. Either IANA sanctioned activity > is canon or it is not. Either what they did with the IAHC has the > same position as their requesting NIC templates prior to entry or > it doesn't. These facts are not in dispute. Of course they are. IANA didn't "request" NIC templates -- IANA *accepted* NIC templates when people submitted them, and repeatedly gave warnings to those submitters not to count on anything coming of those submissions. Your statements about this "history" are a web of self-serving distortions, mis-statements, inaccuracies, and unverifiable assertions, all designed to support the fiction that IANA sanctioned your activities. But it most emphatically did not. Moreover, in the final analysis, your claims of Jon Postel's blessing have absolutely no significance. CORE has a piece of paper with Jon's real signature on it, as official IANA representative. Despite your glowering hints of what you can produce "when the time is right", there has never been a glimmer of any documentary evidence of any of your claims. > THESE FACTS - let's > leave other facts that ARE in dispute out of it. > > So, I reiterate - we have, at most, 5 or so companies that created > infrastructure based upon the actions of IANA. In these cases, > assurances were made that were subsequently broken. As far as I am concerned, your credibility in these matters is absolute zero. Here is a letter from Jon, on this topic: >From postel@ISI.EDU Sat Nov 22 10:01:53 1997 >From: Jon Postel >Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 10:04:08 -0800 (PST) >To: kent@songbird.com >Cc: postel@ISI.EDU, heath@isoc.org >Subject: Re: .web > > >> 3.) The IANA originaly sanctioned Chrsi Ambler in this endevor. That >> is well documented. > >Kent: > >I have no interest in debating this matter with Mr. Williams or anyone >else, but as i am sure you know his statement quoted above is flat out >false. > >There is some room in the review of the events to allow that Chris may >have misinterpreted some things that were said at one stage, however >the full sequence of communications clearly shows that there was never >a scanction/permission/authority/direction given to Chris regarding >".web". There was encouragement to be involved in the process of >developing the plan for new gTLDs. > >As you know, Chris's company IODesign sued me and several others >(personally, rather than suing USC (*)), over this ".web" matter. >However, after the judge denied some preliminary actions by IODesign >(requests for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and an injunction), >IODesign decided not to persue the case. > >(*) USC did provide a strong legal team for our defense in this >matter. > >--jon. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 22:39:28 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p >There is some room in the review of the events to allow that Chris may >have misinterpreted some things that were said at one stage, however >the full sequence of communications clearly shows that there was never >a scanction/permission/authority/direction given to Chris regarding >".web". There was encouragement to be involved in the process of >developing the plan for new gTLDs. I think this says enough. It's called "hedging" and sometimes also called "cover your ass." Jon was human, just like everyone else, and chose to interpret events as he wished. You believe what you want to believe, Kent. I have no desire to argue this point with you again. This was all relevant a couple of years ago. It's not relevant any longer. You have a wonderful day. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 22:38:11 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] about the consensus call; How do we get a degree of - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 16-Mar-2000 Robert F. Connelly wrote: > I therefore do not endorse the idea of having this group compound its > problem by adding a hundred new variables to the selection process *at this > time*. In fact, this group may *never* be able to come to a consensus on > the actual gTLDs to be delegated. I agree with Robert completely. - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE40IFT8zLmV94Pz+IRAtLWAKDdcloytchTomwI3siLOv3yiOQBIACfXjNW CPNJ7/5uIen5NmZrFIypsOw= =M9rb - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 22:45:02 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] about the consensus call; How do we get a degree of On 16-Mar-2000 Robert F. Connelly wrote: >> I therefore do not endorse the idea of having this group compound its >> problem by adding a hundred new variables to the selection process *at this >> time*. In fact, this group may *never* be able to come to a consensus on >> the actual gTLDs to be delegated. > >I agree with Robert completely. I do as well, but only because it's out of the scope of this WG to come to consensus on the actual TLDs to be delegated. This group is tasked to decide HOW new TLDs will be delegated, not WHICH. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 22:45:11 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] about the consensus call; How do we get a degree of - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 16-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote: > On 16-Mar-2000 Robert F. Connelly wrote: >>> I therefore do not endorse the idea of having this group compound its >>> problem by adding a hundred new variables to the selection process *at > this >>> time*. In fact, this group may *never* be able to come to a consensus on >>> the actual gTLDs to be delegated. >> >>I agree with Robert completely. > > I do as well, but only because it's out of the scope of this WG to come > to consensus on the actual TLDs to be delegated. This group is tasked to > decide HOW new TLDs will be delegated, not WHICH. > Precisely. - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE40IL38zLmV94Pz+IRAm/DAJ4lA8KJX02u5E8hMUe97LPwRobJmACfcDGC dlNbzDFoqaKPM7oRo5zemwA= =0744 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 23:16:22 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 16-Mar-2000 Kent Crispin wrote: > Moreover, in the final analysis, your claims of Jon Postel's blessing > have absolutely no significance. CORE has a piece of paper with Jon's > real signature on it, as official IANA representative. Which is worth about the same as my own signature on such a document. - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE40IpG8zLmV94Pz+IRAvRGAJwPPXWa/YUVmwOa5HjSMC+zyz8kFgCgh/9k x+Es0M+cWlcZeIOnQr8qe9g= =KjCj - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 02:15:04 -0500 From: "Milton Mueller" Subject: Re: [wg-c] about the consensus call - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Weinberg" > I'm coming to wonder, though, whether this vision is limited in a way that > I didn't focus on initially. The advantages that I suggest above for a > system in which the initiative comes from applicant registries come into > play in connection with *commercial* TLDs. They're got less value in > connection with noncommercial TLDs such as Jamie's .SUCKS. This distinction makes no sense to me. The idea behind the consensus call is that innovation comes from people who are ready, willing and able to execute new ideas. Innovation does not come from people who merely suggest or propose, it comes from those who act. It matters not at all whether the idea is for making money or not. Jamie's idea was for supporting free expression and a free speech foundation, as CPT proposed to do with .sucks. But why should Jamie/CPT be given "policy authority" over a .sucks TLD merely for stating the idea? Anyone can do that. If he is not willing to put together a package of operational arrangements, he doesn't have a real proposal. We are having an indirect debate. It's time we made it more explicit. Crispin and Crocker want "policy authority" to be separated from registry operation because they want all authority over DNS to be centralized in ICANN's hands. There are two fundamentally different notions of ICANN at stake here. Those of us who want a registry-driven process see ICANN as a mere coordinator of private initiatives, "private" meaning both commercial and non-commercial activity -- activity driven by civil society, not by the state. The other pole in this debate wants registries to be disposable contractors and for everyone involved to be entirely dependent upon ICANN. The "policy authority" would be beholden to ICANN, because it would have no operational capability without ICANN's approval and intervention. The operational entity(s) would be headless horsemen, no business plan, no strategy, just people willing to accept a ho-hum outsourcing contract. All this does is further upend "bottom up" and make everything "top down." Some of us view the Internet as a mechanism for coordinating autonomous actors of civil society. Others view "Internet" as something that is "owned" by a central entity (ICANN) that decides what is "good" for the rest of us. This is what the debate is about now. > But we're still left with Kent's > question whether there's any *value* to requiring Jamie to establish such a > relationship in advance.) If they haven't established that relationship, they don't know what they are doing. What does such a proposal consist of? How does ICANN select one proposer over another? How does it judge competence, the ability to deliver what it promises? These questions I raised days ago. They have never been answered. > Harold Feld, a while ago on this list, suggested > that ICANN might use entirely different selection mechanisms for commercial > and noncommercial TLDs. I'm wondering whether that would indeed be a > superior approach. No. As a long term matter ICANN should be blind to that distinction. In the short term (6-10) it has enough discretion to do what it wants with it. > Another point: Several people, while casting votes in favor of the > proposal, have commented that the proposal is acceptable to them only if > the selection process is bounded by meaningful objective criteria, so that > ICANN can't exercise wholly unbounded discretion in picking the 6-10. That > sounds right to me: It seems to me that that concern is important. At the > same time, as Eric has recently pointed out (and Kent has emphasized > previously), we haven't in fact made much progress in developing criteria > that meaningfully limit ICANN's discretion. Jon, if we are talking about picking a miniscule number such as 6-10, there is no way to limit ICANN's discretion meaningfully, except in a highly general way such as the Sheppard/Kleiman principles. ICANN is going to receive hundreds of potentially valid, desirable applications. As long as you have highly constraining and entirely artificial scarcity, its choice among them will be highly discretionary. That is built in to 6-10. It is something we have been warned about from day one, but it is something we will have to live with until the next round of additions. The S/K principles set some very broad guidelines. The first new TLDs should differentiate, for example. They should not authorize some potentially deceptive string. And so on. The principles are good enough for the situation. Let's move on! > Reactions? Am I right in these late-night assessments, or is the > consensus call proposal a better one than I'm giving it credit for just > now? It is a step forward. Obviously, it needs filling out. But late-night reassessments of fundamentals, with two days left, are not very advisable, eh? - --MM ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 23:31:18 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 16-Mar-2000 Paul Garrin wrote: > Process [...] Process [...] Process [...] We know your disdain for process, Paul. > It has been very healty to work "outside" of this "process" because, > at least in our lab, we actually got something done! Running code, > innovations, operational business, best practice, good policies happy > clients. Great, take the benefits and turn them into a solid concrete proposal that can be judged on equal merits with others. If you setup is so much superior to everyone else's by your claimed experience, then you should have no problem standing up to an equal footing evaluation, right? So why would you oppose it? If working outside the process is so profitable to you, then why do you care what we do here? Continue operating outside the process, and have business as usual. At least you acknowledge you are working outside the process, and by default you can't expect to have anyone recognize any claims you my want to make within the process. - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE40I3G8zLmV94Pz+IRAszzAJ49LzJ3gXB6EL6t8gdy5WABGIqjRgCeKKGi iX7BfK/mWywezzM6Kt03IOQ= =+e0q - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 02:38:43 -0500 From: "Milton Mueller" Subject: Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p For the record, I consider Garrin's Name.space, Crocker's IAHC proposal, Ambler's .web, and Brunner's .naa all to be legitimate applicants for new TLDs, and of the same moral status. The fact that some of these applicants, notably Crocker and Brunner, attempt to elevant themselves above the others may detract from one's personal evaluation of them, but is basically irrelevant to the work of this group. I suggest that this type of squabbling cease. - -- 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: "Dave Crocker" > Give it a rest and try to find some way to discuss legitimate content, > appropriate to the charter of this working group. > > d/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 23:50:38 -0800 From: "Roeland M. J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p So, on the one hand, Postel I and II werent sanctioned but IAHC efforts were? Aren't you trying to have it both ways here? > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On > Behalf Of Dave > Crocker > Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 9:21 PM > To: wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman > "p > > > At 08:49 PM 3/15/00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: > >Please, Dave, show me where IANA has this authority, and > where the NSF > >specifically delegated it to them. Let's deal with facts, > Dave. When you can > > Facts are good. Please let's DO pay attention to them. > > 1. 10 years of operational history is quite a bit of "fact" > > 2. The reference to NSF suggests a pretty thoroughly > deficient model of > how things happened, back then, and by whom. IANA, its > authority, and its > funding pre-date major NSF involvement in the Internet. > > d/ > > =-=-=-=-= > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg Consulting > Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 > 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 23:53:52 -0800 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] about the consensus call On Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 02:15:04AM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote: > > I'm coming to wonder, though, whether this vision is limited in a way that > > I didn't focus on initially. The advantages that I suggest above for a > > system in which the initiative comes from applicant registries come into > > play in connection with *commercial* TLDs. They're got less value in > > connection with noncommercial TLDs such as Jamie's .SUCKS. > > This distinction makes no sense to me. > > The idea behind the consensus call is that innovation comes from people who > are ready, willing and able to execute new ideas. Innovation does not come > from people who merely suggest or propose, it comes from those who act. It > matters not at all whether the idea is for making money or not. Jamie's idea > was for supporting free expression and a free speech foundation, as CPT > proposed to do with .sucks. But why should Jamie/CPT be given "policy > authority" over a .sucks TLD merely for stating the idea? Milton, it would help if you addressed the arguments that were actually made. No one has suggested that one gets "policy authority" just by suggesting a name. I agree -- that would be lunacy. A proposal that delegates policy authority would be evaluated on the basis of the "delegees" qualifications to act in that capacity. Characteristics such as stability, longevity, experience in the policy area, etc would have to be evaluated -- not an easy task in general, but, for example, the EC seems eminently qualified to be a policy authority for a .eu TLD. It isn't necessary that they already have their registry operator selected to make the decision as to whether they are a competent policy authority. > We are having an indirect debate. It's time we made it more explicit. > Crispin and Crocker want "policy authority" to be separated from registry > operation because they want all authority over DNS to be centralized in > ICANN's hands. [fantasy deleted] > Some of us view the Internet as a mechanism for coordinating autonomous > actors of civil society. Others view "Internet" as something that is "owned" > by a central entity (ICANN) that decides what is "good" for the rest of us. > This is what the debate is about now. No, that is not what the debate is about. The above is an extended flight of fantasy, where you do mighty battle with demons of your own creation. But the demons are most assuredly of your own creation. > > But we're still left with Kent's > > question whether there's any *value* to requiring Jamie to establish such > a > > relationship in advance.) > > If they haven't established that relationship, they don't know what they are > doing. What does such a proposal consist of? How does ICANN select one > proposer over another? How does it judge competence, the ability to deliver > what it promises? These questions I raised days ago. They have never been > answered. We haven't answered the question of what the technical qualifications for a registry operator should be, either. Arguably, any of the 250 odd current production registries must meet the qualifications, by definition. But that doesn't mean "redundant DS3's". [...] > Jon, if we are talking about picking a miniscule number such as 6-10, there > is no way to limit ICANN's discretion meaningfully, except in a highly > general way such as the Sheppard/Kleiman principles. [...] > The S/K principles set some very broad guidelines. The first new TLDs should > differentiate, for example. They should not authorize some potentially > deceptive string. And so on. The principles are good enough for the > situation. Let's move on! It amazes me no end that you think that S/K will in any meaningful way limit ICANN's discretion. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 23:54:18 -0800 From: "Roeland M. J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] about the consensus call; How do we get a degree of objectivity to come to bear on the subject? Amen! > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of > Robert F. Connelly > Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 10:18 PM > To: WG-C > Subject: Re: [wg-c] about the consensus call; How do we get a > degree of > objectivity to come to bear on the subject? > > > At 01:05 15-03-2000 -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > > Reactions? Am I right in these late-night > assessments, or is the > >consensus call proposal a better one than I'm giving it > credit for just > >now? If I am right, is there a good (and quick) way to > address (some of) > >those concerns? > > Dear Jonathan: > > A wag once quipped, "Objectivity varies as the square of ones > distance from > the problem". > > Not that I agreed with the questioner, it was posed in the > context that > those least knowledgeable (farthest from the problem) really don't > understand the issue. > > I think all of us know the issue ad nauseam:-{ In this case, > bringing in > the selection of gTLDs brings a degree of divisiveness which > would keep us > arguing in Pershing Square forever -- at least this bunch of > us dies off. > > I therefore do not endorse the idea of having this group compound its > problem by adding a hundred new variables to the selection > process *at this > time*. In fact, this group may *never* be able to come to a > consensus on > the actual gTLDs to be delegated. > > Regards, BobC > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 01:10:48 -0800 From: Justin McCarthy Subject: [wg-c] Deadlines and Draft Language Jon, I think the "Ongoing Work" section is great. It's a solid and equitable representation of what was discussed here in this group. With the way this reads, I take back my previous qualification and am now squarely in group 3. Perhaps the "eight principles" can be improved in future work, but at least there is the foundation of a defined set of criteria with which to judge the registries' applications. Also, apologies to Eric for my rash comment/accusation (I really don't think you're crotchety). - --Justin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:32:40 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 16-Mar-2000 Milton Mueller wrote: > For the record, I consider Garrin's Name.space, Crocker's IAHC proposal, > Ambler's .web, and Brunner's .naa all to be legitimate applicants for new > TLDs, and of the same moral status. Agreed, along with all other legitimate applications who are a part of the application process. They all have equal status, and no one's proposal or application has any preference over anyone elses. > The fact that some of these applicants, notably Crocker and Brunner, attempt > to elevant themselves above the others may detract from one's personal > evaluation of them, but is basically irrelevant to the work of this group. Agreed also, the point is that no one's proposal has ANY right to be elevated above any other proposal/application made once that process is in place. - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE40Jwo8zLmV94Pz+IRAgErAJ49gfUf1zlZL+oqXBFJ26p/8btD9gCgv/qx xOunp+3SY5tQyReT+VLPGtY= =8ct3 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 12:30:10 +0100 From: Mark Measday Subject: [wg-c] Restatement of wg-c discussion - --------------663EB26187C1D9B36A2E46B3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I asked the people who read the email to summarise what they knew about wg-c. Appreciate any corrections. Mr brummer's excellent summaries appear too technical. Summary: 1. There is so much traffic here that one risks collision with one of the parked cars. 2. Mr Rutkowski's masterly misstatement of the ambit of the wg-c mission for renegotiation of .int leads to the 'beautiful' confusion beloved of many good businessmen.. 3. Naive take on the wg-c debate: 1.Should there be new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs)? A: YES, agreed If yes: How many? A: initial 6-10 agreed Which? A: (beyond competence of wg-c to resolve both procedure and substantive candidates, risks of conflict of interest) At which speed should they be deployed and in which order? A: reasonably i.e. over next few years, order TBD What should be the mechanism for developing new gTLDs after all these are deployed. A: mixed, no consensus view Should each new gTLD have a specific charter? A: not necessarily 2.What should the registration and data maintenance process and regulation be?. A: under discussion 3.How should the new gTLDs be managed? A: under discussion What should the registry(ies) be like? A: under discussion Is it mandatory to have a new registry(ies)? A: under discussion Why? Does the structure proposed comply with worldwide concepts of anti-trust law? A: there is no worldwide concept of anti-trust law, quite the reverse. Question should be phrased as to whether compatible with worldwide concepts of sovereignty. What information should be made public by the registry(ies) and how? A: under discussion Obligations of the registry(ies). A: under discussion (please note this does not represent my personal opinions) MM - --------------663EB26187C1D9B36A2E46B3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I asked the people who read the email to summarise what they knew about wg-c.
Appreciate any corrections.
Mr brummer's excellent summaries appear too technical.

Summary:

1. There is so much traffic here that one risks collision with one of the parked cars.
2. Mr Rutkowski's masterly misstatement of the ambit of the wg-c mission for renegotiation of .int leads to the 'beautiful' confusion beloved of many good businessmen..

3. Naive take on the wg-c debate:

1.Should there be new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs)?  A: YES, agreed
If yes:
How many? A: initial 6-10 agreed
Which?  A: (beyond competence of wg-c to resolve both procedure and substantive candidates, risks of conflict of interest)
At which speed should they be deployed and in which order?  A: reasonably i.e. over next few years, order TBD
What should be the mechanism for developing new gTLDs after all these are deployed. A: mixed, no consensus view
Should each new gTLD have a specific charter? A: not necessarily

2.What should the registration and data maintenance process and regulation be?. A: under discussion

3.How should the new gTLDs be managed?  A: under discussion
What should the registry(ies) be like?  A: under discussion
Is it mandatory to have a new registry(ies)?  A: under discussion
Why?
Does the structure proposed comply with worldwide concepts of anti-trust law?  A: there is no worldwide concept of anti-trust law, quite the reverse. Question should be phrased as to whether compatible with worldwide concepts of sovereignty.
What information should be made public by the registry(ies) and how?  A: under discussion
Obligations of the registry(ies). A: under discussion

(please note this does not represent my personal opinions)

MM - --------------663EB26187C1D9B36A2E46B3-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 14:02:10 +0100 From: Mark Measday Subject: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALL -- selecting the gTLDs in the initial rollout support proposal, with the reservation that ICANN's criteria of selection are required to be (i) public (ii) available beforehand (iii) that the jurisdictional problem can be settled.. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:09:57 -0500 From: "Kevin J. Connolly" Subject: RE: [wg-c] about the consensus call; How do we get a degree of "Christopher Ambler" wrote 03/16/00 01:45AM >On 16-Mar-2000 Robert F. Connelly wrote: >>> I therefore do not endorse the idea of having this group compound its >>> problem by adding a hundred new variables to the selection process *at >this >>> time*. In fact, this group may *never* be able to come to a consensus on >>> the actual gTLDs to be delegated. >> >>I agree with Robert completely. > >I do as well, but only because it's out of the scope of this WG to come >to consensus on the actual TLDs to be delegated. This group is tasked to >decide HOW new TLDs will be delegated, not WHICH. Grond scratch head. Grond put URL for WG-C charter into browser. Grond read: 1.Should there be new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs)? If yes: How many? Which? [rest of paragraph omitted] Grond think: when WG-C charter says "which" in third sentence of the quoted paragraph, what is the referent? What means this word "which" in this context unless it means WG-C is supposed to (to put this in the unmistakable terms aviators use in order to prevent auguring into a schoolroom and killing many children) "SAY TO NC NAMES OF NEW GTLDS WHICH SHOULD BE CREATED." Grond give himself headache trying to think of what the word "which" in paragraph 1 of WG-C charter means if it not mean "say names of New gTLDs." Grond want medicine now, him no can figure out what "which" could possibly mean if it not mean this, and headache getting worse. Grond obviously too stupid to play semantic games this morning, him too worried about the girl he didn't leave at the side of the river yesterday, and why..... [digression into the vectors of relationship between the Wu Li masters, Ralph the wonder Llama, and the domain name wars omitted for the benefit of all, including the only other member of this WG who has the least concept of what I'm typing about now :-) Kevin J. Connolly WG-C is a _camel_ designed by a committee. ********************************************************************** 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: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:19:21 -0500 From: "Kevin J. Connolly" Subject: Re: [wg-c] The scope of gTLDs There is a middle course through this muddle. (1) Thesis: a gTLD is one which imposes no prior constraint on who may register a SLD name under it, nor on what the "content of the domain" (whatever that means) may be. (2) Antithesis: There exists such a thing as a chartered gTLD. (3) Synthesis: Neither the registry nor the registrar will act as name cop to prevent anyone from registering a SLD name under a gTLD which has a charter. Neither will the registry or registrar do anything to take the domain name away from someone who (for an obvious example) uses mcdonald.per to complain about the evils of eating the flesh of your ancestors (those ancestors having been reincarnated in bovine mode). Someone else can engage in the role of being name cop; the charter serves only to inject some differentiated meaning into the gTLD so that if mcdonald.per were being used as a virtual community for that ilk of Scot, the cyberjacking trademark interests (pause for Darth Vader theme background music) will be foiled when they file their lawsuit or perform the UDRP tango. Kevin J. Connolly ********************************************************************** 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: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 12:24:52 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p > To give them any accomodation at all is a slap in the face of all the people > who have not decided to go renegade and instead work within the processes that > have led us all to be here. To not give them any recognition is a slap in the face of the handful of companies who have worked within the process since its inception and shown the technical merits of new registries and proven their viability. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 12:50:51 -0800 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p On Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 12:24:52PM -0800, Christopher Ambler wrote: > > To give them any accomodation at all is a slap in the face of all the > people > > who have not decided to go renegade and instead work within the processes > that > > have led us all to be here. > > To not give them any recognition is a slap in the face of the handful of > companies who have worked within the process since its inception and > shown the technical merits of new registries and proven their viability. The only such company is CORE. Companies that file lawsuits to force their way into the IANA root, and in the meantime use rogue root zones, can not by any stretch be said to be working "within the process". - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:03:41 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p > The only such company is CORE. Companies that file lawsuits to force > their way into the IANA root, and in the meantime use rogue root zones, > can not by any stretch be said to be working "within the process". Gee, and I say that CORE is the only such company that does NOT qualify, since it was a failed attempt. I would argue that if it had any standing at all, it would be in the roots right now. Companies that illegal infringe upon trademarks, collude to prevent access to an essential service, and manage to spend almost $2 million with nothing to show for it can not by any stretch be said to be working "within the process." Indeed, CORE seemed to thumb its nose at the process and invent a whole new one. Yawn. Kent: Rhymes with "Bias." - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 08:45:57 +1100 From: "Rothnie, Warwick" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Restatement of wg-c discussion Mallesons Stephen Jaques Confidential communication Discussion of many of the items said to be "under discussion" in Mark Measday's summary appears to be very thin. >What information should be made public by the registry(ies) and how? A: under discussion The April 1999 WIPO Report, The Management of Internet Names and Addresses, (which involved a far more extensive consultation process than this working group can claim) made important recommendations on this point at paragraphs 66, 73, 81, 86 and 90. It can be found at < http://ecommerce.wipo.int/domains/process/eng/processhome.html > At the risk of incurring massive personal abuse from those who believe they should be given licences to print money without any corresponding obligations, these recommendations would seem to be the minimum requirements. Warwick A Rothnie Partner Mallesons Stephen Jaques Melbourne Direct line (61 3) 9643 4254 Fax (61 3) 9643 5999 - -----Original Message----- Obligations of the registry(ies). A: under discussion (please note this does not represent my personal opinions) MM ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #41 *************************