From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #66 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Thursday, March 30 2000 Volume 01 : Number 066 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:40:54 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Working Group C agenda Caveat: my understanding only > At this point, what is Working Group C trying to achieve? Having recommended 6-10 new TLDs as a testbed, and failing to arrive at consensus on any of the other points, there is a little discussion going on about the criteria for qualification as a testbed registry. There appears little hope for consensus on any but the most obvious components thereof. > What are the issues that Working Group C is expected to address? They have been spelled out, and will be again, I'm sure - and while I don't recall them all, I do recall that we have not been able to reach consensus on any of them. > If Working Group C fails to make progress on the details of how new TLDs > get created, what happens? Nothing? No, what happens is what has been expected to happen all along. Consensus failing to appear, the name council will make their own decision, forward it to ICANN along with their opinion on the single item we were able to resolve (6-10 TLDs), and ICANN will decide. Seeing as the single item we resolved may be modified quite simply, I would hazard the opinion that all of our time here was wasted: ICANN is going to do what ICANN is going to do. And it'll be done behind closed doors. Pardon me, I misspoke; it has already been decided behind closed doors. ICANN will just put on a nice show of "thinking about it." They will then call for "public comment" and enact any parts of the public comment that they have already decided upon, and come up with reasons to reject those parts that they've decided against. As has been done to date on all other issues. Do you actually expect otherwise? Me? Bitter? Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 19:13:31 -0800 (PST) From: Rick H Wesson Subject: Re: [wg-c] Working Group C agenda folks, It appears the latest report deals with the first part of item #1 from our charter http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990625.NCwgc.html 1) Should there be new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs)? If yes: How many? Which? At which speed should they be deployed and in which order? What should be the mechanism for developing new gTLDs after all these are deployed. Should each new gTLD have a specific charter? It still looks like we still have not delt with the following: a) Which? b) At which speed should they be deployed and in which order. c) What should be the mechanism for developing new gTLDs after all these are deployed. d) Should each new gTLD have a specific charter I'm not suggesting that we can even come to any agreement on these items as there still seems to be quite a division on just how we should come up with the process for determining the process for (a) 'Which gTLDs get selected'. It appears that the interm report deals with the (b) but we certainly have not yet addressed (c) and the results of the testbed will certainly inflewence that one. Which leaves us with (d) still left to be figured out. Since the interm report appears to satisfy the first document required from the charter ".A first document in which the WG expresses and justifies the answers to the questions expressed in the first point above. " should we start figuring out what needs to happen with the second deliverable? 2) What should the registration and data maintenance process and regulation be?." and go back over which items (a through d) we can reasonably tackle and toss the rest back to the NC for guidance on. comments? - -rick ------------------------------ Date: 29 Mar 2000 17:18:27 -0500 From: megacz@cmu.edu Subject: [wg-c] So why not name.space style? [was suggestion from slashdot] Thanks for the responses so far -- but nobody has told me of any pitfalls of implementing a name.space style internet-wide namespace. Why not? What do you all see as the negative aspects of this sort of policy? (as a reminder, this policy would allow the creation of *infinite* tld's -- on demand. So you could register foo.bar and *.foo.bar, but no entity could buy up all of *.bar -- all registrations must be two levels deep. This would also solve the problem of Apple Computer and Apple Waste Management both claiming rights to apple.com -- instead, they could split it up as apple.waste and apple.computers) - -- "Nobody has any 'Rights'. We are entitled only to Liberties" Adam Megacz -- for current phone/postal, see http://www.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/finger?q=megacz@andrew.cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:22:22 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] So why not name.space style? [was suggestion from slashdot] Two problems: 1. NSI would never agree to it. If they don't agree, it's not fair (and probably not legal) to make new registries have to follow it. Convince NSI to agree, and it can be done. 2. It's not technically feasible right now, the way the system works. This is a weaker reason, as the system could be changed. But for now, it's not. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 2:18 PM Subject: [wg-c] So why not name.space style? [was suggestion from slashdot] > > Thanks for the responses so far -- but nobody has told me of any > pitfalls of implementing a name.space style internet-wide > namespace. Why not? What do you all see as the negative aspects of > this sort of policy? > > (as a reminder, this policy would allow the creation of *infinite* > tld's -- on demand. So you could register foo.bar and *.foo.bar, but > no entity could buy up all of *.bar -- all registrations must be two > levels deep. This would also solve the problem of Apple Computer and > Apple Waste Management both claiming rights to apple.com -- instead, > they could split it up as apple.waste and apple.computers) > > -- > "Nobody has any 'Rights'. We are entitled only to Liberties" > Adam Megacz -- for current phone/postal, see > http://www.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/finger?q=megacz@andrew.cmu.edu > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:44:07 -0500 From: James Love Subject: [wg-c] deadlines What if any are the critical deadlines for WG-C? I'm going to a meeting with a number of labor unions tomorrow, and would to where things stand right now. Jamie - -- ======================================================= 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 ======================================================= ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #66 *************************