From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #67 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Friday, March 31 2000 Volume 01 : Number 067 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 10:18:36 -0500 From: bill@mail.nic.nu (J. William Semich) Subject: Re: [wg-c] deadlines Are these US labor unions? Are you in close touch with labor unions in other countries and regions as well?? bill semich At 09:44 AM 3/30/00 -0500, James Love wrote: >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 >======================================================= > Bill Semich President and Founder .NU Domain Ltd http://whats.nu bill@mail.nic.nu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 10:47:51 -0500 From: James Love Subject: [wg-c] Proposal for new TLDs Although I was pleased to support the paper that ICANN would create 6 to 10 testbed TLDs, I think WG-C will have some problems narrowing it down so much. It might well be easier to do this with a larger number. Name.space provides a nifty voting system for new TLD names, which is on the Internet here: http://vote.global-namespace.net/ As a member of Working Group C, I propose that we take the top 200 names off of this list, and try to put them into catagories as to which ones would be: 1. the most generic .com type top level TLDs, like .web, .mall, .zone, .firm, .asia, etc. 2. The more differentialed TLDs that would most clearly be for open registration, such as .arts, .music, .news, or .consulting, and 3. The types of TLDs that would be might be appropriate for a more restricted charter, or that should be removed from the list for any other reason, such as pending litigation or concerns over trademarks in the TLD. For the names in 1 and 2, that would clearly be open and unrestricted, we ask ICANN to begin a competitive process to run the registries all the names in 1 and 2, under a shared and competitive registrar system. For the names in (2), which are differentiated, we just go forward, because the trademark concerns will be adequately protected by the current ADR. For the names in (1), we ask WIPO to create a list of no more than 3,000 famous names, and give the owners of these famous names a one time first right of refusal for 30 days to acquire the basic registration in (1), like cocacola.inc, if they want to own it. This is the so called "sunrise" proposal some are advocating. It isn't something that I would support on principle, but it could be part of a compromise, depending upon the rest of the "deal." This would all be part of a testbed, and would not bind ICANN or anyone else for future TLD proposals. For example, there would be no agreement that all future TLDs would be on the shared registry model, or that there would be any sunrise requirements on famous names. ICANN would also openly solicit proposals for restricted use TLDs, including both commerical non-commerical chartered TLDs. For the testbed, ICANN should seek to include a significant number of restricted non-commerical TLDs. I recognize this is quite a bit different than the 6 to 10 proposal, and I won't be shocked if people reject this proposal out of hand. But it is offered as a serious proposal to move things alone. I think once you open the door somewhat, it will radically change the public demand for new TLD space, so this should just be a beginning. Here are the top 200 names from the name.space poll, in the order of votes they received (as of this morning). http://vote.global-namespace.net/ WEB. SPACE. SHOP. ART. SEX. ZONE. INFO. FIRM. MUSIC. DESIGN. MEDIA. TRAVEL. ONLINE. ARTS. INC. MAIL. X. HOME. 2000. FAMILY. BANK. USA. LTD. WORLD. NEWS. MAG. FUCK. DIRECT. CORP. FREE. SERVICE. LOVE. SALE. GAMES. CASINO. AUCTION. FUN. MALL. CAM. LAW. STUDIOS. ASIA. MARKET. CAFE. MAD. HACKER. CITY. NETWORK. CONSULTING. EUROPE. COMPUTER. SPORTS. CLUB. JAM. GAME. CAT. ZERO. 4U. SOFTWARE. RADIO. CHANNEL. WINE. BOOKS. TRADE. TIME. COMMERCE. FAX. GRAPHICS. HOLE. LAB. FILM. HOST. INSURANCE. SITE. 4ALL. SHOW. NOW. POWER. SCHOOL. BUSINESS. GROUP. IRC. ONE. TECH. CARS. MAGAZINE. GIRL. SOLUTIONS. PUB. PRODUCTIONS. MOON. SYSTEMS. SHOES. ADS. SOFT. WATCH. AGENCY. BOX. MED. ETC. HELP. HOTEL. COOL. 3D. NYC. GUIDE. CARD. PHOTO. VIDEO. INDEX. AUDIO. RED. COMPUTERS. MARS. TOYS. AIR. ZINE. WAR. SOUND. BAR. UNDERGROUND. THEATER. GIRLS. SECURITY. PLANET. PICTURES. HACK. HELL. PRESS. WORLDWIDE. ENTERPRISES. PAGE. HOUSE. MOVIE. MAN. CENTER. DIGITAL. DOG. GATE. GALLERY. SCIFI. REALITY. DATA. ACCESS. CYBER. MATRIX. GLOBAL. MONEY. MODELS. LINK. CHAT. STAR. CAPITAL. RECORDS. PRO. CENTRAL. UNIX. ACADEMY. PLACE. TOLERANCE. CHAOS. BOOK. ARTISTS. STREET. BEER. THEATRE. CULTURE. UNLIMITED. ANARCHY. STUDENT. WEATHER. MEN. BOYS. JEWELRY. FUND. AIRLINES. THINK. WAY. IMAGE. NOISE. LOGIC. EXPRESS. PEOPLE. GER. VISION. LABS. DANMARK. FILMS. ROCK. WORKS. ARCH. FLUX. MAP. FILTER. HISTORY. SKI. NETWORKS. WALES. COFFEE. ======================================================= James Love, Director | http://www.cptech.org Consumer Project on Technology | mailto:love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367 | voice: 1.202.387.8030 Washington, DC 20036 | fax: 1.202.234.5176 ======================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 11:14:51 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Re: [wg-c] Working Group C agenda At 09:35 PM 3/28/00 -0500, James Love wrote: >At this point, what is Working Group C trying to achieve? >What are the issues that Working Group C is expected to address? >If Working Group C fails to make progress on the details of how new TLDs >get created, what happens? Nothing? Here's the story. The ICANN Board in Cairo resolved, in part: > Resolved that the Names Council is requested to submit recommendations on the topic of the introduction of new generic top-level domains, taking into account protection of globally famous trademarks, no later than April 20, 2000; > Resolved that the staff is authorized and instructed to prepare, taking into account any working group reports and Names Council recommendations received and based on consultation with the Names Council, draft policies, draft implementation documents, commentary, and statements of issues on these topics, to be posted for public comment on the ICANN web site in advance of the Board's meeting in Yokohama on July 15-16, 2000; and > Resolved that the Board notes its intention to act on these topics at the Yokohama meeting. In other words, the Names Council is going to be submitting some set of recommendations to the Board on or around April 20, and then ICANN staff are then going to draw up a set of draft implementation documents, etc., for action at the Yokohama meeting. Presumably ICANN staff will be completing the first draft of those documents by about June 20, so that they can be posted for public comment. It seems plain to me that this WG needs to continue its work through April 20, since any additional consensus points we reach before that date may prove useful to the Names Council when the NC makes its own recommendations to the Board. After April 20, frankly, it's not clear to me whether we have a role — the NC will have made its recommendations, and ICANN staff will have two months "to prepare . . . draft policies, draft implementation documents, commentary and statements of issues" for public comment before the Yokohama meeting. (I've asked Ken Stubbs for NC guidance on this point, but I haven't gotten a response.) So we need to focus our attention on the next three weeks. The first thing I'd like us to take care of is some resolution on the Sheppard/Kleiman principles, . My understanding of the function of the principles is that they would be used by the relevant ICANN body or process to guide its selection of new TLDs or TLD/registry pairs. Philip suggested an initial version a while back. A variety of folks have voiced objections to the particular principles, and Philip has made a variety of changes in response (we're now up to version 8). It seems to me that there are two questions we have to resolve: [1] Is it useful, as a general matter, for us to agree on some meaningful set of principles to guide the relevant ICANN body or process in selecting new TLDs or TLD registry/pairs? It seems to me that, in the context of the last consensus call, most folks indicated that their answer was YES. (Presumably folks who urge that registries should select TLDs themselves, without ICANN involvement, will answer NO to this question. A majority of the WG, though, has indicated that it rejects that approach. From the other side, folks who urge that the WG should simply select the new TLDs now, and be done with it, may view the development of a set of principles as unnecessary. But I don't view that as a realistic option at this point.) [2] Assuming that it would be desirable for the WG to agree on some meaningful set of principles, is this set the right one? I can think of two classes of objections to the current iteration of the principles. The first class would consist of arguments that the principles incorporate undesirable policy choices. The second class would consist of arguments that the principles are too general, and won't meaningfully guide (much less constrain) the decisionmaker. (These issues are related, in that any softening of the principles in response to objections in category 1 may exacerbate objections in category 2.) I'd like us to return to this matter, and reach some resolution, so that we can report to the NC well in advance of April 20 that we either do or don't endorse a version of these principles. To that end, I'd like people who have something to contribute on these issues to speak up now, so that we can figure out where we stand On a completely separate matter: One of the NC members has asked for a short, user- friendly summary of the various models for deploying and implementing new gTLDs that folks described in their position papers. I'd be grateful if each of the position-paper authors could send me a short summary (no more than a paragraph or two) of the scenario for deploying new gTLDs contemplated in that author's position paper, so that I can collate them and transmit the resulting short paper to the NC. Thanks. Jon Jonathan Weinberg co-chair, WG-C weinberg@msen.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 11:30:29 -0500 From: James Love Subject: Re: [wg-c] deadlines "J. William Semich" wrote: > > Are these US labor unions? Are you in close touch with labor unions in > other countries and regions as well?? The meeting is being organized by the Unions (more than 10), and yes, they are in touch with unions in other countries, and would probably enjoy hearing from interested parties also. People can contact Manon Ress to talk about this directly. Manon (disclosure, Manon is my wife) is working for a non-profit NGO that is funded by labor unions, and she much more involved in this effort than I am. 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 ======================================================= ------------------------------ Date: 30 Mar 2000 11:46:00 -0500 From: megacz@cmu.edu Subject: Re: [wg-c] So why not name.space style? [was suggestion from slashdot] > 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. Huh? I'm sure NSI was opposed to allowing other registrars (such as TuCows OpenSRS) compete with them, but that certainly went through. Doesn't ICANN have the power to decide things like this? Perhaps I don't understand the power structure here -- could somebody enlighten me? > 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. Really? What part of the system? Where did somebody (foolishly) hardcode in the current list of gTLD's? Or is it a concern about somebody on an intranet who's been resolving my.machine to my.machine.intranet.com and then somebody registers my.machine in the global namespace? AFAIK, if you type a dot in a hostname, it should resolve in the global namespace first -- or else intranet admins could just set up their nameservers to resolve locally first, then globally. - aj - -- "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 09:06:14 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] So why not name.space style? [was suggestion from slashdot] >> 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. > >Huh? I'm sure NSI was opposed to allowing other registrars (such as >TuCows OpenSRS) compete with them, but that certainly went >through. Doesn't ICANN have the power to decide things like this? >Perhaps I don't understand the power structure here -- could somebody >enlighten me? NSI opposed to a built-in sales force? I don't think so. Does ICANN have the power to decide things like this? No. Now that NSI is under contract, ICANN cannot just up and modify it. The contract is up for renewal in 2007, I believe - THEN you could propose this. Until then, NSI's single-registry-per-TLD model is locked by contract. > 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. >Really? What part of the system? Where did somebody (foolishly) >hardcode in the current list of gTLD's? Or is it a concern about >somebody on an intranet who's been resolving my.machine to >my.machine.intranet.com and then somebody registers my.machine in the >global namespace? AFAIK, if you type a dot in a hostname, it should >resolve in the global namespace first -- or else intranet admins could >just set up their nameservers to resolve locally first, then globally. Do you understand how DNS works? (serious question, not meant as an insult in any way). We're not talking the ability to add new TLDs - that's not a problem. The problem is in creating a system where there is shared access at the registry level. We have shared access at the REGISTRAR level, but that means that they all contact a single central registry. In the case of .com, that's NSI. The "name.space" model is based on the premise that the registry can also be run by multiple companies. While I can't even see the business model working, that's moot, as there is no technical way that the DNS can support that now. Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 13:02:50 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: [wg-c] flawed process or flawed principles Jon, I prefer flawed process, the working group model Kent has proposed, over the alternative proposed by Sheppard/Kleiman. I understand the first, the second I don't. Eric ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:59:00 +0100 From: john.c.lewis@bt.com Subject: [wg-c] Vote on WG-C Report Given the limited scope of this report and its failure to address the wide range of key issues, ranging from the customers' needs, through to operational issues, the key criteria needed for creating new gTLDs, and not forgetting the issues of trademark, brand and IPR, I cannot support the submission of this document to the Names Council and vote NO. Best regards John C Lewis BT co-ordinator & representative: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 13:43:33 -0800 (PST) From: "Jonathan E. Graehl" Subject: [wg-c] why not name.space style: - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Allowing arbitrary two-level domain names to be registered using the existing system would be equivalent to having all those names as TLDs (if we were just passing around hosts files with a few thousand entries like back in the Stone Age of the Net, fine, but the name database was distributed with good reason). Sure, we can separate authority over a name from physical hosting of the name subtree, but who is compensated how much, and on what granularity will competition be allowed - how much technical complexity and overhead are you willing to put up with? The requirement that all registrations must be two levels deep is meaningless and achieves nothing on any meaningful level except requiring a dot somewhere in the middle of the name you register ;) What I would see happening is this making a lot more money for the registrars, because you would have registrations of www.apple and mail.apple and buy.apple, and have Apple Waste Management and Apple Computer duking it out just as if you'd allowed them to register the entire ".apple" TLD. The hierarchical authority structure should not be blithely thrown away. If you see a name that ends in .x.y.z, right now, you know that that the name is controlled by whoever has the primary name server for x.y.z (which may be y.z if it doesn't delegate to another server), and ultimately, by whoever registered the second level domain name y.z, since they can change which name server the authority for z, with whom they registered y.z, delegates to. *And* the technical process of resolving the name to an IP address mirrors this authority structure directly and simply. What technical alternative are you proposing to allow arbitrary numbers of TLDs or SLD/TLD combos (it makes no difference technically except for the period that must be in the middle ;), and allow registrars and top level name servers to compete (or be compensated based on a fair regulatory structure)? If you don't mean to allow arbitrary sld.tld names to be registered when either sld or tld would be a contested trademark (isn't everything? ;), and require the tld to be a category for if the sld is trademarked in any category, then I like the idea. I'd like to hear how you can make it work. - - -Jonathan Graehl > 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 - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.5.1i iQA/AwUBOOPKiudiGY7ECcwEEQKdvACeJ460AJ5cavgW2iqa3htlUdz3JJsAoIR7 70E0ydVBfvyYEX9+q4RbSk2c =r9i4 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:17:34 -0500 From: "Martin B. Schwimmer" Subject: [wg-c] OFF TOPIC: Jamie Love on Microsoft settlement http://www.lawnewsnetwork.com/practice/corporatelaw/news/A20029-2000Mar29.html @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #67 *************************