From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #75 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Monday, April 10 2000 Volume 01 : Number 075 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 16:35:53 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Another gTLD starts up - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08-Apr-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote: > With the news that .TV is now open for business, we have yet another > ccTLD mutating into a gTLD. > > It has taken almost FIVE YEARS NOW to get no further than we were > when we started. > > I call upon ICANN to open the root to new TLDs by their July meeting. > Companies, such as those pioneers were working with Jon Postel as > far back as 1995 on the original newdom list, have been economically > harmed by the delays. Until ICANN, an argument could be made that > there was no clear authority to add new TLDs. At this time, however, > the authority path seems to go from ICANN to the DoC. > > Stop the delays, and stop the perpetuation of the artificial scarcity (and, > some might argue, the perpetuation of NSI's monopoly on gTLDs and > the economic harm that continues to tax pioneer and prospective > registries). > > Enough is enough. Yes, let's work out a process to accept applications and have all them considered equally on their merits alone. No preferentional treatment to anyone. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ 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/ iD8DBQE478JZ8zLmV94Pz+IRAqQxAKDwQOyttIOIUcUaTD18oYDr4O8dJQCfeGX0 GRnwRUFB2Ve9IENsMbdW6Po= =uxqQ - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 16:46:43 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Another gTLD starts up Even that would be a step forward that I would welcome. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web - -----Original Message----- From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of William X. Walsh Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2000 4:36 PM To: wg-c@dnso.org Subject: RE: [wg-c] Another gTLD starts up - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08-Apr-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote: > With the news that .TV is now open for business, we have yet another > ccTLD mutating into a gTLD. > > It has taken almost FIVE YEARS NOW to get no further than we were > when we started. > > I call upon ICANN to open the root to new TLDs by their July meeting. > Companies, such as those pioneers were working with Jon Postel as > far back as 1995 on the original newdom list, have been economically > harmed by the delays. Until ICANN, an argument could be made that > there was no clear authority to add new TLDs. At this time, however, > the authority path seems to go from ICANN to the DoC. > > Stop the delays, and stop the perpetuation of the artificial scarcity (and, > some might argue, the perpetuation of NSI's monopoly on gTLDs and > the economic harm that continues to tax pioneer and prospective > registries). > > Enough is enough. Yes, let's work out a process to accept applications and have all them considered equally on their merits alone. No preferentional treatment to anyone. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ 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/ iD8DBQE478JZ8zLmV94Pz+IRAqQxAKDwQOyttIOIUcUaTD18oYDr4O8dJQCfeGX0 GRnwRUFB2Ve9IENsMbdW6Po= =uxqQ - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 15:01:28 -0400 From: Eric Brunner Subject: [wg-c] Two Para D&I Summary (PPE) Title: Two Para D&I Summary (PPE) The model for deployment advocated in PPE is application by a user [1] to a gTLD evaluation working group [2], affirmative recommendation by that group, confirmation by the DNSO NC and ICANN Board, and execution of a delegation agreement. The application may be made in response to an RFP (see also PPD). The model for implementation advocated in PPE is the public resource DNS model, with shared registries operated on or near their cost-recovery basis, with some affirmative policy or jurisdictional scope applied by the registry operator. The policy/scope may be "weak/none" (e.g., identical to NSI registries) or "strong/specific", (e.g., identical to the North American Aboriginal proposal). Footnotes: [1] "user" here may be an interested party, e.g., applicant(s) to operate registry(ies), applicant(s) to act as registrar(s) to registry(ies), and applicants to register within registry(ies). "user" may also be a disinterested party. [2] the ICANN Board or its designate, e.g., the DNSO NC, which may in turn designate a body for the specific purpose of evaluation and assistance of new gTLD applicants. About 100 words, minus the footnotes. Happy Sunday everyone. Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 12:07:08 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Two Para D&I Summary (PPE) > The model for implementation advocated in PPE is the public resource DNS model, > with shared registries operated on or near their cost-recovery basis... Is this mandatory? If so, it's illegal unless you also require all other currently operating registries (read: NSI) to follow it. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 15:44:17 -0400 From: Eric Brunner Subject: [wg-c] Ambler's take [was: Two Para etc, ] Chris, If you'll turn over my prior item of email and read the verso you'll find both the text you seek (modification of the Cooperative Agreement) and the authorizing legislation (transfer of the U.S. Department of Commerce to an Indian Nation to be designated by ICANN). These are sufficient to meet your stated objections, if you have any new ones, don't hesitate to let me know. Of course, you could have just said "IOD can't make (enough) money that way, so could you rephrase it so that (one or more of) "public resourse", "shared registries", and "cost recovery" was marked "optional" or "optional at some date subsequent to operation", but you are your own best judge of what is in your best intersts. Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 12:53:12 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Ambler's take [was: Two Para etc, ] You've lost it. This discussion serves no purpose. Have a nice day. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Brunner" To: Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2000 12:44 PM Subject: [wg-c] Ambler's take [was: Two Para etc, ] > Chris, > > If you'll turn over my prior item of email and read the verso you'll find > both the text you seek (modification of the Cooperative Agreement) and the > authorizing legislation (transfer of the U.S. Department of Commerce to an > Indian Nation to be designated by ICANN). > > These are sufficient to meet your stated objections, if you have any new > ones, don't hesitate to let me know. > > Of course, you could have just said "IOD can't make (enough) money that way, > so could you rephrase it so that (one or more of) "public resourse", "shared > registries", and "cost recovery" was marked "optional" or "optional at some > date subsequent to operation", but you are your own best judge of what is in > your best intersts. > > Cheers, > Eric ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 13:18:34 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Two Para D&I Summary (PPE) - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 09-Apr-2000 Eric Brunner wrote: > Title: Two Para D&I Summary (PPE) > > The model for deployment advocated in PPE is application by a user [1] to a > gTLD evaluation working group [2], affirmative recommendation by that group, > confirmation by the DNSO NC and ICANN Board, and execution of a delegation > agreement. The application may be made in response to an RFP (see also PPD). > > The model for implementation advocated in PPE is the public resource DNS > model, > with shared registries operated on or near their cost-recovery basis, with > some > affirmative policy or jurisdictional scope applied by the registry operator. > The policy/scope may be "weak/none" (e.g., identical to NSI registries) or > "strong/specific", (e.g., identical to the North American Aboriginal > proposal). Sorry but this will not fly. There is absolutely no reason for all registries to be run as shared registries, and there is no reason to demand that all registries operate under a cost recovery basis. Let's not revisit this issue, you will never gain consensus behind these points. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ 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/ iD8DBQE48OWa8zLmV94Pz+IRAohSAKCh4vPh6NxFDz5nTs/35+DmroSLGwCgpMKc XgHm4ijRIugy7V8JdKabl6U= =9pSy - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 16:59:33 -0400 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] Two Para D&I Summary (PPE) William, Feel free to make your case for non-flight to the requestor(s), doing so here is either a bit of Sunday Driving or Seriously Stupid, your pick of which is the better choice. Likewise for your comment on consensus, or were you hoping the newcommers would flock to do away with all Interim Report Position Papers failing to meet some hair-trigger consensus test? I don't think all of our newer participants are brainless illiterate trailer court judges dying to stamped at the flip of a hat, but you could be right. In case you honestly missed the request, it was from some member of the NC, via the WG-C co-chair, for a user-friendly (catchy, neh?) two-para on the deployment and implementation for each model offered in the Interim Report. [final para, Weinberg to wg-c of 30 March.] Cheers, Eric > Sorry but this will not fly. There is absolutely no reason for all registries > to be run as shared registries, and there is no reason to demand that all > registries operate under a cost recovery basis. > > Let's not revisit this issue, you will never gain consensus behind these points. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 17:10:36 -0400 (EDT) From: James Love Subject: RE: [wg-c] Two Para D&I Summary (PPE) On Sun, 9 Apr 2000, William X. Walsh wrote: > Sorry but this will not fly. There is absolutely no reason for all > registries to be run as shared registries, and there is no reason to > demand that all registries operate under a cost recovery basis. > > Let's not revisit this issue, you will never gain consensus behind > these points. Of course, the ccTLDs certainly are not done this way. But for new unrestricted new gTLDs, is there any reason why they should not run as a shared registry, or subject to price regulation? Also, on a related issue, is there any reason a profit making company that wanted to run a gTLD registry should be able to get a contract similiar to the NSI contract, prehaps with a clause regarding price caps? Jamie ============================================= James Love, Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367 | http://www.cptech.org Washington, DC 20036 | love@cptech.org Voice 202/387-8030 | Fax 202/234-5176 ============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 14:41:37 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Two Para D&I Summary (PPE) > Of course, the ccTLDs certainly are not done this way. But for > new unrestricted new gTLDs, is there any reason why they should not run > as a shared registry, or subject to price regulation? If you are contending that this is NSI's current situation, then you are correct. The price was negotiated between NSI and DoC, and set at $6. To say that new registries must operate in the same manner would be correct. This is not, however, a "cost recovery" situation by any means. I would contend that the word "unrestricted" in your question above would be striken. This would be the model for ALL new TLDs created. Basing economic requirements upon business model is discriminatory, at best. > Also, on a related issue, is there any reason a profit making > company that wanted to run a gTLD registry should be able to get a > contract similiar to the NSI contract, prehaps with a clause regarding > price caps? That's not a related issue, it's the same issue. See answer above. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 08:22:50 +0900 From: "Robert F. Connelly" Subject: [wg-c] Moderate earthquake in Japan. Dear Colleagues: Just a quick note to say we had a moderate earthquake in Tokyo at about 06:30 Monday morning, 10 April 2000. No damage that we've noticed. Regards, BobC and Jane Connelly ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 10:08:07 -0400 From: "Milton Mueller" Subject: [wg-c] Re: [Nc-tlds] ICANN's Working Group C discussions on "Guidelines for the initialrollout of new gTLDs" > ----------------------- > So I've taken a shot at a revised version of S/K, to eliminate > those problems. The guidelines that follow reorganize Philip's principles; > reword them very slightly; and (most importantly) eliminate principle #1 > ("a gTLD should give the net user confidence that it stands for what it > purports to stand for") in favor of the new language in guidelines 1 and > 3. I like what Jon has done here. The revisions in #1 and #2 offer ICANN Board a bit more procedural substance than the original principles. > (I don't think we should address multilingualism in this > document. I personally favor multilingualism, but it's a controversial issue > currently being addressed in the IETF and elsewhere, and deserves a WG of its own; > we shouldn't just throw in language about it at the last minute.) I don't really agree with this. I think it confuses the issue of non-ASCII domain names with the issue of new TLDs that are based on non-English languages (e.g., ".banco"). The first is an issue for IETF, the second ICANN can do regardless of how IDN comes out. ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #75 *************************