From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #55 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Monday, March 20 2000 Volume 01 : Number 055 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:57:37 -0500 From: "Anthony Lupo" Subject: Re: SV: [wg-c] OK, *really* final version I Vote No ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:09:07 -0000 From: "Keith Gymer" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Vote I vote no I share Philip's and Petter's concerns. Keith Gymer PAGE HARGRAVE Manfield House 1 Southampton Street London WC2R 0LR T: +44 (0)20 7240 6933 F: +44 (0)20 7379 0268 Email: london@pagehargrave.co.uk Web: www.pagehargrave.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:24:44 -0700 From: katie@imt.net Subject: Re: [wg-c] Important -- voting on WG report 3/20/00 mo 10:22 am mst my vote is YES ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:21:46 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: RE: [wg-c] WG-C report -- final version At 11:47 AM 3/20/00 -0500, Winer, Jonathan wrote: >"No," although the report is by and large very helpful. >There seemed to be a majority on the Sheppard/Kleiman principles, and >if there wasn't, the issues raised should be considered important enough to >resolve first >rather than to proceed piece-meal. We ran out of time with Sheppard/Kleiman, but FWIW, I think it's important for us to keep pushing -- I'd like the WG either to reach a solid consensus re: the principles (whether they're desirable, and if so what they should consist of), or to conclude that it can't, within the next four weeks, so that we can report that result to the Names Council *before* the NC members take their own vote on new gTLDs. Jon Jonathan Weinberg co-chair, WG-C weinberg@msen.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:27:47 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] WG-C report -- final version At 10:16 AM 3/20/00 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote: >You have done a great job managing this process but I am forced to vote no >to the WG C report. How many is the wrong question. Recommending an >oligopoly of 6-10 will do nothing for consumer confidence as it will >encourage warehousing and cyber squatting without the differentiation that >is so desperately required. This is the first time that someone from the trademark constituency seems to be suggesting the need for immediately creating MANY new TLDs. Unfortunately Philip, this low a number, for initial addition to the DNS, was developed directly in response to concerns from your colleagues! Separately, you seem to miss the point that this is an INITIAL increment. Given your affiliation with companies concerned with branding, you are presumably familiar with the concept of a staged roll-out. That is what this is supposed to be. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:32:32 -0800 (PST) From: T Vienneau Subject: RE: [wg-c] Vote on WG report I vote yes. Jon, Thanks for an excellent job. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:40:19 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: [wg-c] Administrivia (long form) Summary: 32 to 4. 20 December ballot "yes" voters have not been heard from, three PPA co-signers and four PPB co-signers, along with 12 December ballot "no" voters, five of whom co-signed PPC. 139 subscribers of list 'wg-c' (revised as of 19 Mar 2000): 8 subscribers of list 'wg-c-digest' (revised as of 19 Mar 2000): - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ name | paper | 8 Dec | CAIRO | March | | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A.M. Rutkowski | B | | | | | Ajay Joshi | | | NEW | | | Alex Kamantauskas | | | NEW | YES | | Amar Andersson | A,D | | | | | Andrew Lutts | | yes | | | | Andrew Watt | | | NEW | | | Ann-Catherine Andersson | | yes | | | | Annie Renard | C | no | | | | Anthony Lupo | C | no | | NO | | Astrid Broich | | yes | | | | Barbara Dooley | | no | | | | Beth Kennedy | | | | | | Bill Blitch | | | NEW | | | Bob Broxton | | no | | | | Bret Fausett | | | NEW | | | Caroline Chicoine | | C | no | | | Chris Burton | | | | | | Chris Conant | | yes | | | | Chris Pelling | | | NEW | | | Christopher Ambler | B | yes | | YES | | Constanze Schmidt | | | | | | Craig Simon | F | yes | | YES | | Daiva Tamulioniene | | yes | | | | Daniel Pare | | | NEW | | | Dave Crocker | A,D | yes | | YES | | David Maher | A,D | yes | | YES | | David Rosenblatt | | | | | | David Schutt | | | NEW | | | Dongman Lee | | yes | | | | Edler & Nebel Softwaree | | | NEW | | | Elisabeth Porteneuve | | no | | | | Eric Brunner | A,D,E | yes | | YES | | Eric Lee | | | | | | Eva Froelich | |abstain| | | | Francois-7ways | | | NEW | | | Fred Vogelstein | | | NEW | | | Frederick Duca | | | | | | Geoffrey Dalman | | | | | | Glenn Kowack | | | | | | Greg Schuckman | | | NEW | | | Hal Lubsen | | yes | | | | Harold Feld | | yes | | YES | | Harald Tveit Alvestrand | | | NEW | YES | | Hiroyasu Murakoshi | | | NEW | | | Ian Penman | | yes | | YES | | Ivan Pope | | | | | | J. William Semich | | no | | YES | | James Love | | | NEW | YES | | James Seng | | | NEW | | | Javier Sola | D | | | | | Jay Parker | | yes | | YES | | Jean-Michel Becar | A | yes | | YES | | Jeff Shrewsbury | | yes | | YES | | Jeff Trexler | | | NEW | | | Jeffrey Neuman | | | | | | Jerry Yap | | | NEW | | | Joe Kelsey | | | NEW | | | John Charles Broomfield | | yes | | YES | | John Giannandrea | | | | | | John Lewis | | no | | | | John Zehr | | | | | | Jonathan Weinberg | A | yes | | | | Jonathan Winer | | | NEW | | | Josh Elliot | | | NEW | YES | | Joop Teernstra | B | yes | | YES | | Joseph Friedman | A,D | yes | | YES | | Justine McCarthy | | | NEW | YES | | Karl Auerbach | | yes | | YES | | Kathryn Vestal | B | yes | | | | Kathryn KL | | | NEW | | | Keith Gymer | C | no | | | | Ken Cartwright | | | NEW | | | Ken Stubbs | | yes | | | | Kent Crispin | D,E | | | | | Kevin J. Connolly | | no | | | | Kilnam Chon | | yes | | | | Kyle Taylor | | | | | | Lisa Nelmida | | | NEW | | | Loo, Douglas | | | | | | Mariah Garvey | | | NEW | | | Marilyn Cade | C | no | | | | Mark Langston | B | yes | | TES | | Mark Measday | A | yes | | YES | | Martin Schwimmer | C | no | | | | Michael Palage | | no | | | | Michael Prescott | | | NEW | | | Michael Schneider | | | | | | Mikki Barry | B | yes | | YES | | Milton Mueller | B | yes | | | | Myron L. Rosmarin | | | | | | Myung Sun Chung | | | | | | Neeran Saraf | | | | | | Olivier Kozlowski | | yes | | | | Oscar Robles | | | | | | Otho Ross | | no | | | | Patrick Greenwell | | | NEW | | | Paul Garrin | B | yes | | YES | | Paul Gregson | | | | | | Paul Stahura | A | yes | | | | Petter Rindforth | C | no | | NO | | Philip Sheppard | | no | | NO | | Raul Echeberria | |abstain| | | | Rebecca Nesson | | yes | | | | Richard Campbell | | | NEW | | | Richard Kroon | | | NEW | | | Richard Lindsay | | yes | | | | Rick H. Wesson | | yes | | YES | | Rob Hall | | | | | | Robert F. Connelly | A | yes | | | | Robert Keller | | | NEW | | | Robert Waters | | | | | | Rod Dixon | A,B | yes | | YES | | Roeland Meyer | G | yes | | YES | | Roger Cochetti | | | | | | Ross Wm. Rader | | yes | | YES | | Scott Pollard | | no | | YES | | Shunichi Otagaki | | | NEW | | | Siegfried Langenbach | A | yes | | YES | | Soo Jeong LEE | | | | | | Stephanie Rulfs | | | NEW | | | Stephen Goodman | | | | | | Stuart Ellis | | | NEW | | | Sue Leader | | | | | | Timothy M. Denton | B | yes | | | | Timothy Vienneau | | | NEW | | | Tolga Yurderi | | | | | | Tom Newell | | | | | | Tony Bradley | | | NEW | | | Tony Linares | | | NEW | YES | | Tsuneo Yoshioka | | | NEW | | | Warwick Rothnie | | | NEW | NO | | Werner Staub | | yes | | | | Wes Monroe | | | | | | Will Donaldson | | | NEW | | | William X. Walsh | B | yes | | YES | | Younjung Park | |abstain| | | | hyeyoung kang | | | | | | etienne@telebot.net | | | NEW | | | faia@amauta.rcp.net.pe | | | NEW | | | j.eder@berkom.de | | | NEW | | | jothan@nic.cc | | | NEW | | | jwheeler@boardwatch.com | | | NEW | | | kendall@paradigm.nu | | | NEW | YES | | tinwee@pobox.org.sg | | | NEW | | | m.janiaud@paris.infonie.| | | | | | zehl@berkom.de | | | NEW | | | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:28:30 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" Subject: Re: [wg-c] WG-C report -- final version On Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 12:21:46PM -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > > We ran out of time with Sheppard/Kleiman, but FWIW, I think it's important > for us to keep pushing -- I'd like the WG either to reach a solid consensus > re: the principles (whether they're desirable, and if so what they should > consist of), or to conclude that it can't, within the next four weeks, so > that we can report that result to the Names Council *before* the NC members > take their own vote on new gTLDs. Sheppard/Kleiman rehash at a very late date most of the territory we'd already covered at its introduction, and attempts to draw different conclusions. While it may have been floated with the best of intentions to foster agreement between WG-B and WG-C, the result has been that many old arguments are now being rehashed. WG-B has its own charter, and was not intended to be the "WG-C for the IP constituency". However, that's what it's become. I'll reiterate that all public work in WG-B has ceased. If there is still substantive work occurring in WG-B, it is not occurring in the public forum designated for such work. Finally, I don't see how the NC _can_ consider a vote on these issues in good conscience _without_ the report from this WG. The only appropriate action for the NC to take should the report be delayed would be for the NC to delay the vote until the report is in, and then vote as guided by the report. But then, the NC is full of people with a vested monetary interest in a decision one way or the other. They're not the best group to be making technical management decisions for the namespace, since their financial interests and their will to act for the good of the Internet may not exactly overlap. - -- Mark C. Langston mark@bitshift.org Systems & Network Admin San Jose, CA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:39:13 -0800 From: Jothan Frakes Subject: [wg-c] vote Great respect due to Jon for the efforts WRT the process of this evolution. I must ABSTAIN. [due to conflict of interest in the process, and I must note that my position on this personally may or may not reflect that of the company which I work for.] - -Jothan Frakes ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:41:32 -0800 (PST) From: Karl Auerbach Subject: Re: [wg-c] The IAB statement on sharing DNS domain registires > An official statement by the Internet Architecture Board, "IAB Technical > Comment on the Unique DNS Root" And that should remind us all of that time, back in 1956 when after 28 years of assertions by AT&T's finest technical experts and by the Federal Communications Commission that the Hush-A-Phone would damage the telephone system, a US Federal Court looked at a Hush-A-Phone and said to the purported experts - hooey. That decision, a decision that told the technical experts that they were making policy choices in the guise of technical statements, opened the door to shared access to the phone system and thus enabled the creation of todays Internet. The IAB statement on DNS has absolutely no bearing on the policy question of diversity of ownership of operators of DNS in the ICANN franchise root. --karl-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:59:30 -0800 From: "Bret A. Fausett" Subject: [wg-c] Vote Yes. -- Bret ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 14:15:33 -0500 From: Kendall Dawson Subject: [wg-c] re: Administrivia Actually, Eric I joined WG C on 23 Feb. 2000. And, I'm not sure why my vote wouldn't be counted anyway. Is there an "time clause" for WG C that I missed somewhere in the charter ? Must a participant be a member for 90 days before their votes are counted ? Some people (although new to this list) may have been following this process for awhile. Regards, Kendall Eric Brunner wrote: - -------------------------------- > A Kendall Dawson appears to have subscribed to WG-C in the last 24 hours > and has sent a "YES" vote. I don't count it (in memory of the late, and > lamented Matt Hooker). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:53:33 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] The IAB statement on sharing DNS domain registires At 10:41 AM 3/20/00 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > An official statement by the Internet Architecture Board, "IAB Technical > > Comment on the Unique DNS Root" > >And that should remind us all of that time, back in 1956 when after 28 >years of assertions by AT&T's finest technical experts and by the Federal AT&T had a self-interest in the matter. The IAB does not. >The IAB statement on DNS has absolutely no bearing on the policy question >of diversity of ownership of operators of DNS in the ICANN franchise root. Given your background, Karl, it is quite astonishing that you are so cavalier about stable administration and operation of the DNS. It also remains curious that you are willing to do battle about the IAB statement with everyone except the IAB... d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 14:39:16 -0500 From: "Kevin J. Connolly" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Vote I vote "Yes" in the sense that the report summarizes the consensus of WG-C. I do not thereby mean to concur that the policies expressed in the report are wise, nor do I mean that the consensus of WG-C resembles the consensus of the Internet Community. ********************************************************************** 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: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:56:19 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 20-Mar-2000 John Charles Broomfield wrote: > Do you need it any clearer or do you continue to run in circles? I'm no the one twisting words around and running in circles, so I won't even respond to your great twisting of what I said into something far from what it was. - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE41oJj8zLmV94Pz+IRApLgAJ9qgWhygsVxctu1uNbgUKdpFIubTACgm4p6 1psG7+ld0vo7/ZkhMg+5foY= =lJH4 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 14:53:40 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] reposted for Bob Broxton >From: bob broxton >To: wg-c@dnso.org >Subject: [wg-c] Vote > >It is with regret I must resign from WG-C. A sudden increase in >responsibilities and obligations over the weekend, including an illness >in the family, prevent my further participation. As such, I feel I >should not vote on any pending actions before the group. > >Jon is to be congratulated on his hard work, professionalism, manners >and enthusiasm in leading the group. > >I wish to thank all WG-C members for the courtesy shown me for the short >period of time I was a member the group. > >Bob Broxton >erols.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:03:26 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Re: [wg-c] WG-C report -- final version At 10:28 AM 3/20/00 -0800, Mark C. Langston wrote: >[snip] >Finally, I don't see how the NC _can_ consider a vote on these issues >in good conscience _without_ the report from this WG. The only >appropriate action for the NC to take should the report be delayed >would be for the NC to delay the vote until the report is in, and then >vote as guided by the report. >[snip] *This* report is going to the Names Council in approximately seven hours (assuming that the WG approves it, which seems likely, since my current running tally is 38 yes, 7 no). That's mandated by the schedule the NC gave us. The NC will then request public comment, and it will take its own vote in four weeks. I'd like us to reach rough consensus re: the principles (whether they're desirable, and if so what they should consist of), or to conclude that we can't, before that date four weeks from now. I figure that anything we can report to the NC before that date will be useful. Jon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:16:14 EST From: KathrynKL@aol.com Subject: Re: [wg-c] Vote To the extent that I am allowed to vote as a fairly new member to WG-C (although one who has been following your debates closely), I vote YES. The hard work of this WG-C is a real credit to Jonathan W. and to you, its members. I think everyone in Cairo recognized and appreciated the work of WG- C -- which was well and eloquently presented by Jonathan. Kathy ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:18:49 -0800 (PST) From: Patrick Greenwell Subject: Re: [wg-c] The IAB statement on sharing DNS domain registires On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Dave Crocker wrote: > At 10:41 AM 3/20/00 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > An official statement by the Internet Architecture Board, "IAB Technical > > > Comment on the Unique DNS Root" > > > >And that should remind us all of that time, back in 1956 when after 28 > >years of assertions by AT&T's finest technical experts and by the Federal > > AT&T had a self-interest in the matter. The IAB does not. Sure it does though it is far less tangible: influence. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell Earth is a single point of failure. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 12:54:02 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] The IAB statement on sharing DNS domain registires At 12:18 PM 3/20/00 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote: >On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Dave Crocker wrote: > > AT&T had a self-interest in the matter. The IAB does not. >Sure it does though it is far less tangible: influence. At worst, that motivates them to say SOMETHING. It does not affect the content of their statement. "Influence" is the same no matter what they say. However the real humor in the claim that they are affected by "influence" is how reluctant they are to get into these kinds of topics and how much effort it took to refine the question sufficiently to make it strictly technical and not political. Of course, a different issue is how silly it is to be arguing motivations, rather than the content of their thorough and well thought-out statement. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 13:02:20 -0800 (PST) From: Rick H Wesson Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs Eric, why should new gTLDs be creted for potential registrant populations less than 10^5. Infact this would be an excellent test for the utility of a generic TLD, why create something that does not have the potential for more than a certain limit, whatever limit is set. Does the creation of something like .MUSEUM realy add to the utility of DNS or are we looking at DNS's ability to be a relay bad directory service again? If our goal is to open the way for popular gTLDs that create more "generic" name space then I believe you are making an excelent case not to have sparcely populated, no matter the modle, gTLDs as the mere fact that the gTLD lends more benifit to the registry than to the general internet community. What we are atempting to do is add a greater and more diverse name space not lend greater credibility to any .SOMETHING regards, - -rick On Sun, 19 Mar 2000, Eric Brunner wrote: > Rick, > > Rather than risk starting another (avoidable) WG-C event, why not just > send your question to Ken Stubbs, Erica Roberts and Paul Kane and let > the Article VI-b(3) Constituency speak for themselves? > > Do they want to attempt multi-policy operations for modest volumes of > registrants to distinct registries? To act as registrars to .MUSEUM and > .NAA and similar bits of the DNS registry market? > > Do they want to attempt single-policy operations for high volumes of > registrants to registries who's "distinction" is simply sufficient to > survive the Sheppard/Klieman litmus (seven or more variations on the > themes of "apple-pie" and "generic-hood")? > > If the question were couched in rational economic terms (hand waving is > allowed) rather than in absolute terms, it and the answer(s) could be > interesting. As posed, the obvious answer is "no", until you think why > registrars would give a fig for registrant populations smaller than the > threshold of the day, 10^4 or 10^5 or 10^6 or 10^7 registrants. > > Cheers, > Eric > > P.S. I haven't gotten a scrap of mail from a registry operator (but one) > or a registrar that suggests that registrant populations smaller than an > initial guess of 10^5 registrants is of the slightest interest to them. > ------------------------------ Date: 20 Mar 00 16:13:56 EST From: Richard Subject: [wg-c] Vote Yes ____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.amexmail.com/?A=1 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 13:30:39 -0800 (PST) From: Karl Auerbach Subject: Re: [wg-c] The IAB statement on sharing DNS domain registires > >And that should remind us all of that time, back in 1956 when after 28 > >years of assertions by AT&T's finest technical experts and by the Federal > > AT&T had a self-interest in the matter. The IAB does not. Neither did the FCC which endorsed the AT&T position. And one should acknowledge the practical sense in Patrick Greenweell's comment on this point. > >The IAB statement on DNS has absolutely no bearing on the policy question > >of diversity of ownership of operators of DNS in the ICANN franchise root. > > Given your background, Karl, it is quite astonishing that you are so > cavalier about stable administration and operation of the DNS. It also > remains curious that you are willing to do battle about the IAB statement > with everyone except the IAB... There is not one word in the IAB statement which has any bearing on mandatory diversity ownership of entities involved in DNS. If you want to continue to assert that there is, please feel free to cite it and demonstrate its relevancy. As usual, here is the standard to apply: A matter is "technical coordination" of the Internet if: A wrong decision has an immediate and direct impact on the ability of the Internet to deliver its fundamental service, i.e. the end-to-end transport of IP packets. Otherwise it is a policy matter. Well, that's two for today. --karl-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 13:51:18 -0800 (PST) From: Patrick Greenwell Subject: Re: [wg-c] The IAB statement on sharing DNS domain registires On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Dave Crocker wrote: > At 12:18 PM 3/20/00 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote: > >On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Dave Crocker wrote: > > > AT&T had a self-interest in the matter. The IAB does not. > >Sure it does though it is far less tangible: influence. > > At worst, that motivates them to say SOMETHING. > > It does not affect the content of their statement. "Influence" is the same > no matter what they say. > > However the real humor in the claim that they are affected by "influence" > is how reluctant they are to get into these kinds of topics and how much > effort it took to refine the question sufficiently to make it strictly > technical and not political. It isn't a technical statement. It is a highly political one though. This is borne out by a statement being made in the face of ample evidence and "running code" which contradicts much of their statement. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell Earth is a single point of failure. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:09:42 -0500 From: "Mariah Garvey" Subject: Re: [wg-c] OK, *really* final version I vote no. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 07:20:19 +0900 From: "Robert F. Connelly" Subject: Re: [wg-c] current version of WG-C report At 15:43 17-03-2000 -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: Dear Jon: I vote yes. Please consider my comment on formatting, below: > The relationship between domain names and trademark rights > presents an >important and difficult issue, and is appropriately addressed by registry >data maintenance requirements, dispute resolution mechanisms such as the >UDRP, and any other device that ICANN may choose to adopt, as well as by >national legislation. Trademark owners' concerns in this regard are >important ones, and not to be overlooked. In public comments on the >Interim Report, a substantial number of commenters urged that deployment >should be delayed until after implementation of the uniform dispute >resolution procedure, improved domain name registration procedures, and >adoption of a system for protecting famous marks. They included, among >others, Jonathan Cohen (then an NC member, IPC), Jon, unless the reader is intimately aware of what we are doing, they will not know that the last phrase means. I think it means the Jonathan Cohen is now a member of ICANN's Board, but he was then a member of the "Names Council" representing the "IP Constituency". It gets worse, references to ISPCPC and NCDNHC are just too cryptic. Our report needs to be understandable to outsiders on the Internet. I know you've worked hard on this project, much harder than any of us would have been willing to do. But I wonder if you could do a bit of "searching and replacing". A the very least, flesh out "C" to "Con". Personal regards, BobC ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 14:22:03 -0800 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs On Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 01:02:20PM -0800, Rick H Wesson wrote: > > Eric, > > why should new gTLDs be creted for potential registrant populations less > than 10^5. While this seems superficially reasonable, it is in my opinion going at things in the wrong direction, and asking the wrong question. Small size of the potential registrant population is a secondary concern, and in fact, in the other direction it is a truly bad measure -- we don't want to only have TLDs that have potential registrations in the multimillions -- that would just create repeats of the .com problem. We are far better off to have *many* TLDs, each with relatively small, disjoint, populations, than we are to have 10 TLDs with huge registrant populations. By this standard, .int is an excellent TLD, even though it is very small -- entities that register in .int, as a general rule, don't also register in other TLDs. .edu is also a "good" TLD, because, while some schools do register in .com, by and large .edu registrations don't overlap with other TLDs. There will always be some overlap in registrant populations, especially as long as there are huge TLD megalopolises like .com. But I am suggesting that one of the primary criteria for goodness of a TLD is how well it captures a unique registrant population, or, in other terms, how well it partitions the total registrant population. By this measure, a chartered TLD may or may not be a "good" TLD. .museum would be a "good" new TLD if the registrants didn't also register in .com; it would be a "bad" new TLD if the registrants all registered in .com as well. Note that this factor works well with chartered TLDs, but is not restricted to them, because in some cases the name alone is a strong segregating factor. By this measure, also, TLDs that appeal to ethnic or cultural groups are also good, because entities that register in them will tend not to register in other TLDs. Couple more points: 1) this "partition the registrant population" principle would seem to somewhat enhance the use of DNS as a directory, but that is an effect, not a goal. 2) This approach to name space management is also somewhat contrary to monolithic commercial TLDs that seek to maximize registrations, because overlapping name/registrant spaces are good in that world. Kent - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 14:35:36 -0800 (PST) From: Joe Kelsey Subject: [wg-c] Vote Yes ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 17:58:47 -0500 From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Vote I vote no. The report is presented as a consensus, and I have been among those who haven't agreed with the view that there is consensus among a large enough representation of the working group. I am pleased to see that Jon accepted some of the input put forward by the Business and commercial Constituency, although I believe that not all of the input was reflected. I know that Jon has worked hard to present what he personally views as a good compromise. His efforts to bring order to the functioning of the WG are to be commended. However, there are areas which must be addressed thoroughly before decisions about numbers of new gTLDs are made. Some of those areas are in the going forward work. I am not confident that this working group has broad enough participation to give consideration to the full scope of these issues. This is intended as a comment, not a criticism; but one which needs addressing to ensure that any recommendations are well founded, indeed have broad and diverse support and are not just the thoughts of those few of us who are showing up. I suggest that consideration be given by the NC to a different and more limited assignment to WG's. We have all undoubtedly learned valuable lessons from the first WGs' experiences. It is time to incorporate some of that learning in the WGs and consider reformatting, or modifying them. It would also be useful for the DNSO to give consideration to the functioning of all the WGs, and how to staff them. I believe it is very hard for the co-chairs, when they have a personal view, to try to maintain complete impartiality. That means that, at a minimum, co-chairs should be chosen who represent different views. Finally, the WG has not had a NC liaison and that should be among the activities which the NC addresses post haste. That would be further support to the co-chairs. - -----Original Message----- From: Bret A. Fausett [mailto:baf@fausett.com] Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 1:00 PM To: wg-c@dnso.org Subject: [wg-c] Vote Yes. -- Bret ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 14:58:16 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] more on non-shaired gTLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 20-Mar-2000 Kent Crispin wrote: > we don't > want to only have TLDs that have potential registrations in the > multimillions -- that would just create repeats of the .com problem. What exactly is the ".com problem" Kent? - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE41q0I8zLmV94Pz+IRAikPAKDrY3W7m8uePpsdkAIasDExYZQ2TgCePfyC 7Z27XL11h03l/UBkdNoye50= =AM0Q - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #55 *************************