From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #84 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Wednesday, April 12 2000 Volume 01 : Number 084 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 07:58:44 +0200 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT At 13:52 11.04.2000 -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote: >You are proposing a WG on a *policy* matter. > >ICANN's very own mandate says that they oversee TECHNICAL >COORDINATION of the Internet. > >How do you justify this? Technical coordination has to have policies too. Harald - -- Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 00:06:38 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT At 07:58 AM 4/12/00 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: >At 13:52 11.04.2000 -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote: >>ICANN's very own mandate says that they oversee TECHNICAL COORDINATION of >>the Internet. >>How do you justify this? >Technical coordination has to have policies too. indeed. And a small nitpick with the original note: ICANN's scope is a very small set of three coordination activities. It has taken on -- and been assigned -- nothing as extensive or ambitious as (all) technical coordination of the (entire) Internet. It sounds quite dramatic to overstate ICANN's scope, but it is not accurate. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 00:17:15 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT Even better. My personal opinion is that this is all going much too far, and the overreach shall be its undoing. But that's just my opinion - I'm keen to wait and see. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web - -----Original Message----- From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Dave Crocker Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 12:07 AM To: wg-c@dnso.org Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT At 07:58 AM 4/12/00 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: >At 13:52 11.04.2000 -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote: >>ICANN's very own mandate says that they oversee TECHNICAL COORDINATION of >>the Internet. >>How do you justify this? >Technical coordination has to have policies too. indeed. And a small nitpick with the original note: ICANN's scope is a very small set of three coordination activities. It has taken on -- and been assigned -- nothing as extensive or ambitious as (all) technical coordination of the (entire) Internet. It sounds quite dramatic to overstate ICANN's scope, but it is not accurate. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 09:24:11 +0200 From: "Philip Sheppard" Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT #1 I vote NO #2 I vote YES #3 I vote NO - I'm persuaded to await IETF and then act accordingly. Philip. Philip Sheppard AIM - European Brands Association 9 av. des Gaulois B-1040 Brussels Tel +322 736 0305 Fax +322 734 6702 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 07:07:36 +0900 From: Dongman Lee Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT Dongman Lee wrote: > > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE > > > > WG-C recommends that the Names Council charter a working group to develop > > policy regarding internationalized domain names using non-ASCII characters. > > Yes. I'd like to refine my vote on this as Yes with the condition that the WG will be started as an informational WG. Dongman Lee - -- Dongman Lee, Ph.D. Associate Professor School of Info & Computer Engineering Information and Communications University 58-4 Hwaam-Dong, Yusung-Ku Taejon 305-348 Korea E-mail: dlee@icu.ac.kr Web: http://www.icu.ac.kr Tel: 042-866-6113 Fax: 042-866-6222 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 06:53:10 -0400 From: Eric Brunner Subject: [wg-c] Administrivia Morning (EDT) all, Philip Sheppard, the author of so much wasted ink on how to go forward on 6-10, has for the third time voted AGAINST 6-10. I'm just sooo surprised. The count and ammount as of this morning are below. Cheers, Eric - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ name | paper | 8 Dec | CAIRO | March | April | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bret Fausett | | | NEW | YES | Y.Y.a | Christopher Ambler | B | yes | | YES | Y.Y.N | Dave Crocker | A,D | yes | | YES | N.N.Y | Dongman Lee | | yes | | | Y.Y.Y | Eric Brunner | A,D,E | yes | | YES | Y.N.N | Harald Tveit Alvestrand | | | NEW | YES | Y.N.N | James Love | | | NEW | YES | Y.Y.Y | James Seng | | | NEW | | Y.Y.a | Jeff Shrewsbury | | yes | | YES | Y.Y.Y | Jerry Yap | | | NEW | | Y.Y.Y | Joe Kelsey | | | NEW | YES | N.N.N | John Charles Broomfield | | yes | | YES | a.y.y | Jonathan Winer | | | NEW | NO | Y.Y.Y | Karl Auerbach | | yes | | YES | y.N.N | Kevin J. Connolly | | no | | YES | y.N.N | Mark Langston | B | yes | | YES | y.N.N | Milton Mueller | B | yes | | | Y.Y.N | Philip Sheppard | | no | | NO | N.Y.N | Richard Campbell | | | NEW | | Y.Y.N | Rod Dixon | A,B | yes | | YES | Y.Y.Y | Ross Wm. Rader | | yes | | YES | N.N.N | Timothy M. Denton | B | yes | | | Y.N.Y | Tony Linares | | | NEW | YES | Y.Y.Y | William X. Walsh | B | yes | | YES | Y.Y.N | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Y.x.x Votes: 25 (of 150 maximum possible, 49 being the ballots cast in March) Legend: Y and N are obvious, y, n, and a mean I _think_ the statement is yes, no or abstain x means that at the proposition doesn't appear to be heading to consensus Comments: The PPC party typically votes just prior to the ballot period closure, and may vote N.Y.a. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:06:52 +0100 From: Jean-Michel Becar Subject: RE: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE The initial rollout should include a range of top level domains, from open TLDs to restricted TLDs with more limited scope. YES PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO Criteria for assessing a gTLD application, subject to current technical constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should be based on all of the following principles : 1. Meaning: An application for a TLD should explain the significance of the proposed TLD string, and how the applicant contemplates that the new TLD will be perceived by the relevant population of net users. The application may contemplate that the proposed TLD string will have its primary semantic meaning in a language other than English. 2. Enforcement: An application for a TLD should explain the mechanism for charter enforcement where relevant and desired. 3. Differentiation: The selection of a TLD string should not confuse net users, and so TLDs should be clearly differentiated by the string and/or by the marketing and functionality associated with the string. 4. Diversity: New TLDs are important to meet the needs of an expanding Internet community. They should serve both commercial and non-commercial goals. 5. Honesty: A TLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for malicious or criminal elements who wish to defraud net users. 6. Competition: The authorization process for new TLDs should not be used as a means of protecting existing service providers from competition. YES PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE WG-C recommends that the Names Council charter a working group to develop policy regarding internationalized domain names using non-ASCII characters. YES Jon ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 09:34:48 -0400 From: James Love Subject: Re: [wg-c] Administrivia Hi Eric. What do these 8 December, Cario (NEW), March, April things mean? Is this some type of measure of when people joined wg-c or something? Is there a rooster of wg-c membership with details like this somewhere? (CPT has sent people to the past 3 ICANN board meetings, but only joined working group C right before the Cario meeting). Jamie Eric Brunner wrote: > > Morning (EDT) all, > > Philip Sheppard, the author of so much wasted ink on how to go forward on > 6-10, has for the third time voted AGAINST 6-10. I'm just sooo surprised. > > The count and ammount as of this morning are below. > > Cheers, > Eric > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > name | paper | 8 Dec | CAIRO | March | April | > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Bret Fausett | | | NEW | YES | Y.Y.a | > Christopher Ambler | B | yes | | YES | Y.Y.N | > Dave Crocker | A,D | yes | | YES | N.N.Y | > Dongman Lee | | yes | | | Y.Y.Y | > Eric Brunner | A,D,E | yes | | YES | Y.N.N | > Harald Tveit Alvestrand | | | NEW | YES | Y.N.N | > James Love | | | NEW | YES | Y.Y.Y | > James Seng | | | NEW | | Y.Y.a | > Jeff Shrewsbury | | yes | | YES | Y.Y.Y | > Jerry Yap | | | NEW | | Y.Y.Y | > Joe Kelsey | | | NEW | YES | N.N.N | > John Charles Broomfield | | yes | | YES | a.y.y | > Jonathan Winer | | | NEW | NO | Y.Y.Y | > > Karl Auerbach | | yes | | YES | y.N.N | > Kevin J. Connolly | | no | | YES | y.N.N | > Mark Langston | B | yes | | YES | y.N.N | > Milton Mueller | B | yes | | | Y.Y.N | > Philip Sheppard | | no | | NO | N.Y.N | > Richard Campbell | | | NEW | | Y.Y.N | > Rod Dixon | A,B | yes | | YES | Y.Y.Y | > Ross Wm. Rader | | yes | | YES | N.N.N | > Timothy M. Denton | B | yes | | | Y.N.Y | > Tony Linares | | | NEW | YES | Y.Y.Y | > William X. Walsh | B | yes | | YES | Y.Y.N | > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Y.x.x > Votes: 25 (of 150 maximum possible, 49 being the ballots cast in March) > Legend: Y and N are obvious, y, n, and a mean I _think_ the statement is > yes, no or abstain > x means that at the proposition doesn't appear to be heading to > consensus > > Comments: > The PPC party typically votes just prior to the ballot period > closure, and may vote N.Y.a. - -- ======================================================= 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: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:04:43 +0200 (STD) From: Daiva Tamulioniene Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT 1. I vote NO 2. I vote YES 3. I vote NO Regards, Daiva ========================================================================= Daiva Tamulioniene Kaunas University of Technology LT hostmaster LITNET NOC Studentu 48a-101, Kaunas, Lithuania tel. 370-7-353325 370-7-799782 370-98-36652 fax. 370-7-331925 ========================================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 06:31:33 -0700 (PDT) From: T Vienneau Subject: RE: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT Initial rollout #1 Yes Principles #2 Yes non-ASCII wg #3 No __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 08:40:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Alex Kamantauskas Subject: RE: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs >> William, you say "we." Who is "we?" > > The people who are saying that IOD/CORE and their preregistrations should not > have any standing. > And those of us who feel that no organization with pre-registrations should have an advantage by any other organization with pre-registrations by being part of the testbed. I'm not in favor of entirely disenfranchising *all* organizations with pre-registrations - I just want a level playing field for the testbed. - -- Alex Kamantauskas alexk@tugger.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 10:05:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Alex Kamantauskas Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE YES > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO NO > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE NO - -- Alex Kamantauskas alexk@tugger.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 10:17:33 -0500 From: Jay Parker Subject: [wg-c] Vote Item One: Yes Item Two: Yes Item Three: Abstain - -- Jay Parker West Indies Communications Group International Trust House 180 East Bay Street Charleston, South Carolina 29401 USA tel: +843-805-8460 fax: +843-805-8466 www.westcomgroup.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 10:26:23 -0400 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] Administrivia James Love asked: 1. what the column headers of my administrivia mailings indicate. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ name | paper | 8 Dec | CAIRO | March | April | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ a person's name which position paper (see the Intrim Report) co-signed vote on 6-10 (prior consensus call omitted) "NEW" if post-CAIRO joinee vote on 6-10 and some vote on 6-10 and some e.g., Eric Brunner | A,D,E | yes | | YES | Y.N.N | I co-signed A (later retracted, compromise with the hunger-crazed for-profit loony-wing is simply too much of a bother to pursue in the first round), D, and (co-authored) E. I voted for 6-10 in all three of its ballot questions, and against Philip Sheppard's little parade-to-oblivion, and against an i18n question (code sets for DNS labels) adding to the core issues for wg-c to resolve. To obtain the text of the directions to position paper authors, or to obtain the text of the ballot question for each of the 8 Dec or March questions, go to the archives. 2. is this some type of measure of when people joined wg-c or something? Yes. ("or something" is awfully forgiving) 3. is there a rooster of wg-c membership with details like this somewhere? No. Hence my contribution which everyone is free to correct or ignore. Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 11:30:00 -0400 From: Kendall Dawson Subject: [wg-c] re: CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT My vote: PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE -- YES PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO -- YES PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE -- YES Kendall ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 12:07:02 -0400 From: Harold Feld Subject: [wg-c] Consensus call On item 1: Yes On item 2: Yes On item 3: Abstain. I'm not clear enough in my own mind on whether asking ICANN to do this will facilitate current efforts already underway or will hinder them. Harold Feld ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 09:15:45 -0700 From: "Bret A. Fausett" Subject: [wg-c] Please Explain "No on 1, Yes on 2" Can someone who voted "no" on #1 and "yes" on #2 please explain your concerns? (No need to waste a post on a cute response, this is a real question.) I can understand voting #1 "if and only if #2." Is that the concern? Or is the "No" on #1 based on the concern that there are too few gTLDs to be implemented? too many? If the concern is too many, please explain that as well. I viewed passage of the S/K principles as something that would allow *many* new gTLDs to be added in a way that would not wreck havoc on users and existing domain name registrants. I don't know why we need the principles if we're going to implement 1 or 2 gTLDs for this initial testbed. If that's what we're going to do, then we could table the S/K principles until we refine them further. You could characterize my vote as #2 "if and only if #1" (or more new gTLDs). I'd really like to hear what caused some people to vote N/Y/x. -- Bret ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 07:47:45 -0700 From: "Josh Elliott" Subject: RE: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT #1 YES #2 NO #3 NO WAY ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 09:40:12 -0700 From: "Bret A. Fausett" Subject: [wg-c] Please Explain "No on 1, Yes on 2" (More) Bret A. Fausett wrote: > Or is the "No" on #1 based on the concern that there are too few gTLDs to be > implemented? too many? Just for clarification, I didn't misread the question -- but I did read some votes against #1 (when coupled with a vote for #2) as a vote revisiting the 6-10 question. In my mind, affirmation of the S/K principles assumes a multiplicity of TLD models, "from open TLDs to restricted TLDs with more limited scope." But perhaps others read them differently. So I would also ask, does N/Y/x mean that one supports 6-10 new gTLDs meeting the S/K principles that but one hopes that they are all open gTLDs, all closed gTLDs? If so, that seems a poor test of the S/K principles themselves. Why am I wrong? Thanks. -- Bret ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 18:03:15 +0100 From: "Keith Gymer" Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE The initial rollout should include a range of top level domains, from open TLDs to restricted TLDs with more limited scope. NO - if "open" simply means producing an undifferentiated replica of .com; otherwise, I would agree that new TLDs could usefully have a range of charters from more to less restrictive, but differentiation and resolution of the TM issues are essential PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO Criteria for assessing a gTLD application, subject to current technical constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should be based on all of the following principles : YES PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE WG-C recommends that the Names Council charter a working group to develop policy regarding internationalized domain names using non-ASCII characters. NO - not yet - [not often I agree with Milton M ;-) ] but my understanding is that there remain significant technical issues to address on this, and so IETF would presently seem to be the appropriate development forum. Keith ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 18:26:41 +0100 From: "Penman, Ian" Subject: RE: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT My vote: PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE YES PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO YES PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE YES Ian Penman DLA 3 Noble Street, London EC2V 7EE mailto:ian.penman@dla-law.co.uk - -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:weinberg@mail.msen.com] Sent: 11 April 2000 16:29 To: wg-c@dnso.org Subject: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT As promised, here is a set of three consensus calls. Please note that these are *three separate items*, and that you need to vote on them *separately*. That is, it won't work to send in a response that says "I vote yes," or "I vote no." Rather, you need to vote yes or no on *each* of the three items. The deadline for voting is Monday, April 17 at 4 pm UTC (6 pm in Brussels, noon in New York, 9 am in Los Angeles, 1 am the following day in Tokyo). I want to urge *everyone* in the WG to weigh in on these three items. If you like 'em, vote yes. If you don't, vote no. There's nothing wrong with a proposed consensus item failing if the members of the WG, having decided that it's a bad idea, vote against it. But there's something very wrong with an item failing because too few of the WG members bother to cast a vote at all. Here are the three items. PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE The initial rollout should include a range of top level domains, from open TLDs to restricted TLDs with more limited scope. PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO Criteria for assessing a gTLD application, subject to current technical constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should be based on all of the following principles : 1. Meaning: An application for a TLD should explain the significance of the proposed TLD string, and how the applicant contemplates that the new TLD will be perceived by the relevant population of net users. The application may contemplate that the proposed TLD string will have its primary semantic meaning in a language other than English. 2. Enforcement: An application for a TLD should explain the mechanism for charter enforcement where relevant and desired. 3. Differentiation: The selection of a TLD string should not confuse net users, and so TLDs should be clearly differentiated by the string and/or by the marketing and functionality associated with the string. 4. Diversity: New TLDs are important to meet the needs of an expanding Internet community. They should serve both commercial and non-commercial goals. 5. Honesty: A TLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for malicious or criminal elements who wish to defraud net users. 6. Competition: The authorization process for new TLDs should not be used as a means of protecting existing service providers from competition. PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE WG-C recommends that the Names Council charter a working group to develop policy regarding internationalized domain names using non-ASCII characters. Jon ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 11:02:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Patrick Greenwell Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE Yes. > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO No. (It would have been helpful if these were broken down point by point to vote on.) > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE No. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell Earth is a single point of failure. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 11:15:40 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: [wg-c] "It Won't Work" At 09:07 PM 4/11/00 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: >It certainly means that there are no expectations that anyone can apply >the list objectively or reliably when making choices. In other words - the list is completely useless. It's one big guess. Someone else is making the decisions. Best Regards, Simon - -- The future is still out there... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 100 14:42:19 -0400 (AST) From: John Charles Broomfield Subject: Re: [wg-c] Please Explain "No on 1, Yes on 2" (More) Hi, I did an abstain/no vote/whatever (hey, Eric picked it as a "a" instead of "A" :-) ) because I think that mixing gTLDs and chartered/limited TLDs is mixing apples an oranges. If things are sorted out for both types at the same time, then fine for adding whatever, but if concerns on the chartered side are not ironed out, why block the generic side, and vice-versa. The concerns and issues to be dealt with are VERY different in both cases (although they have many TECHNICAL similarities). Similarities: - -they are both strings of characters that would be entered in the legacy roots - -in both cases there will be an entity running a database that generates the zone file. - -in both cases there will (presumably) be multiple secondaries located in different geographic areas for resilience. - -both will have SLDs visible under them. (further technical requirements imposed on the entities maintaining the database may be common sense, o BCP). Unfortunately, apart from those generalities, I feel that it ends there. The idea many of us in this WG (certainly not all) have of a gTLD is an unrestricted TLD open to registration to all those who wish to register in it through some sort of registrar facility (which many argue to keep separate from the registry so as to allow multiple choice), with no limitations (other than technical) on the choice of characters for the SLD, with a pricing cheme which is dependent on the value-added services that one may (or not) be getting packaged along together with that name (which, as the additional services are NOT strictly linked to the registry operations, is why we argue for separate cost-recovery no-frills backend registry operations). Stability of these generic TLDs should not be in the hands of the entity doing the backend registry operations (which will probably be some sort of service company trying to make a profit running these services), but in the hands of some entity higher up in the food chain, which as we have it would be ICANN. The entity running the backend registry owes allegiance to itself, and noone else, so it would just be looking at how to maximise it's profits, not through streamlining its operations, but by raising tariffs as far as it could go, without killing off the cashflow (if by doubling tariffs you lose just 25% of your customers, it certainly makes sense -at least to me- to double your tariffs, as your cashflow would be increased by 50%, and your profits by more than that -the extra 100% is PURE profit-). Issues to be resolved are precisely the confirmation (or denial) of much which I mention above. Things like: - -Is the registry to be run on a cost-recovery basis? (which doesn't preclude a for-profit company bidding to win a tender to run it and making a profit out of that). - -Are registry/registrar functions forced to be kept separate? If so, are the registry-registrar interface specs something that the registry entity decides, or the registrar entity, or mandated by ICANN to use an open standard? - -Is ICANN the ultimate authority on how/who/what are operations for a gTLD? (like who runs them, and being able to decide to redelegate) - -How and who to decide which are the strings that constitute a gTLD? (first choose registry and let it choose what it wants? Somehow draw up a list of a bunch of gTLDs that some sort of consensus is given about them being a good idea in a generic way to become gTLDs? Allow ICANN to "dictate" new gTLDs with no community input?...) ... Once those issues are resolved, presto we have everything we need to go ahead (these ARE the issues we've been arguing over for the past few years) with gTLDs. On the other hand, for chartered TLDs, these are (in some ways) very similar to ccTLDs, in that a homogeneous community is identified that wishes to have a TLD (the community of museums, or of american indigenous people, or of ham radio operators...), and therefore responsability for that TLD is transferred to this community. All operations, pricing, registrar-registry structure, profit or not, would be completely up to that community. After all, it is THEIR TLD (and therefore, THEIR PROBLEM), as with ccTLDs... The issue to be resolved before delegating chartered TLDs are completely orthogonal to those for delegating generic TLDs: - -Is there really a justification for creating a TLD for this specific community (some may argue that this is also an issue with generic TLDs)? - -Who decides what constitutes a community? (we could argue that ccTLDs are chartered TLDs, in which the charter for creation is that they have to be in ISO-3166, and from there they get delegated to the country -or whoever shows up from that country/territory-). - -Is the entity requesting the delegation in the name of that community representative of that community? - -Is there consensus within that community for this entity? ... As you can see, I feel that the issues are VERY different (some may disagree and take the stance that a TLD is just a bunch of characters and there is no difference between .com, .mil, .fr and .to but we would just have to agree to disagree there). This is why I personally declined to answer in favour or not of bundling chartered TLDs and generic TLDs in the first rollout. If I think a little further (and if I am permitted to change my vote) I actually vote NO to bunching them together, because the issues are so different, that they won't necessarily be resolved simultaneously, and therefore delays in defining one shouldn't hinder the other. Yours, John Broomfield. > Bret A. Fausett wrote: > > Or is the "No" on #1 based on the concern that there are too few gTLDs to be > > implemented? too many? > > Just for clarification, I didn't misread the question -- but I did read some > votes against #1 (when coupled with a vote for #2) as a vote revisiting the > 6-10 question. In my mind, affirmation of the S/K principles assumes a > multiplicity of TLD models, "from open TLDs to restricted TLDs with more > limited scope." But perhaps others read them differently. > > So I would also ask, does N/Y/x mean that one supports 6-10 new gTLDs > meeting the S/K principles that but one hopes that they are all open gTLDs, > all closed gTLDs? If so, that seems a poor test of the S/K principles > themselves. Why am I wrong? > > Thanks. > > -- Bret > > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 16:44:55 -0400 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] Please Explain "No on 1, Yes on 2" (More) John, A nice piece of writing. One could reasonably view (my) position as: 1. opportunistic, and adding to the already quite difficult clutter, and at least positioning "one community" for early access in the next round (see Kent's suggestion in PPD, which I co-signed), or 2. non-opportunistic, expanding the scope of policy and jurisdiction for TLDs from "none/all" (modern NSI TLDs) and "none/state", to "non-trivial/non-state", e.g., "trademark-lawyers/hell", or 3. non-opportunistic, expanding the methodology of new TLD evaluation from hypothetical considerations to something as breathtaking as sticking a finger in one's nose and creating one, and iterating this messy act in the belief that improvement will follow, or 4. only the first of several advocates for competing "Indian" (or marks-lawyers-in-hell) registries. Where I'd try and change your analysis is on the 4th point, as it isn't, as Milt in a rare moment on acerbic insight in what is otherwise a lunatic cyber-charade of the new-tech market, a given that the NAA proposal is not going to face competition from within what you view as "one community". Fundamentally, I read your think-piece as assuming that any non-trivial charter exhausts the policy/scope/business-model of the market, hence that these really "look like" ccTLDs. Delegate once, forget forever. I don't think this will prove true. If you'd like to point out the areas where two extremes of the policy/locality model differ, I'll be happy to try and suggest how the difference may be the result of assumptions which may not be true. It sure beats trying to write intelligently about S/K. Bret, The meaning of N/Y/x depends on who's vote you are referring to. Dave and John mean something quite different from Philip. Dave, John, and others have voted FOR 6-10 in the past. Philip has voted AGAINST 6-10. Philip votes against _generic_generic_generic_ gTLDs. Dave, John, and others vote against _chartered_chartered_chartered_ gTLDs. Personally I think a lot more of those who vote N.N.x than those who vote N.Y.x, even though they vote against non-trivial charter in the present. S/K is pernicious junk, and N.Y.x revisits 6-10, for the 3rd time in as many months. Aren't you glad WG-B and the NC dumped Philip on us? Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 100 16:51:37 -0400 (AST) From: John Charles Broomfield Subject: Re: [wg-c] Please Explain "No on 1, Yes on 2" (More) > John, > A nice piece of writing. Thank-you. > One could reasonably view (my) position as: > 1. opportunistic, and adding to the already quite difficult clutter, > and at least positioning "one community" for early access in the > next round (see Kent's suggestion in PPD, which I co-signed), or > 2. non-opportunistic, expanding the scope of policy and jurisdiction > for TLDs from "none/all" (modern NSI TLDs) and "none/state", to > "non-trivial/non-state", e.g., "trademark-lawyers/hell", or > 3. non-opportunistic, expanding the methodology of new TLD evaluation > from hypothetical considerations to something as breathtaking as > sticking a finger in one's nose and creating one, and iterating > this messy act in the belief that improvement will follow, or > 4. only the first of several advocates for competing "Indian" (or > marks-lawyers-in-hell) registries. > > Where I'd try and change your analysis is on the 4th point, as it isn't, as > Milt in a rare moment on acerbic insight in what is otherwise a lunatic > cyber-charade of the new-tech market, a given that the NAA proposal is not > going to face competition from within what you view as "one community". I would presume that if ".naa" is a well thought proposal then the community of indigenous american nations would be happy for this TLD to exist, and would be in general happy for whatever entity you advocate to control it (ie, that consensus within that community exists for wanting it the way you present it). It *is* after all (unless I've missed the point completely) a TLD for indigenous american nations, so I think that one should presume that the community (although it is a very diverse community of course) of indigenous american nations would have consensus to want it the way you present it. Be careful to note that I am not so narrow minded as to group all indigenous americans as just one group, but it IS what the purpose of this TLD seems to be in any case. AFAIK the jury is out on if this is useful or not. Personally I would just say, hey, if the community of I.A.N. decides that they want/need/would be happy with this, they should be entitled to it. Please don't ask me to quantify when a group should be entitled or not, because I'm not sure on that, which is why I'm sceptical about the general workability of chartered TLDs, and just prefer to stay out of that particular battle. > Fundamentally, I read your think-piece as assuming that any non-trivial > charter exhausts the policy/scope/business-model of the market, hence that > these really "look like" ccTLDs. Delegate once, forget forever. I don't > think this will prove true. ? Well, that *should* be the point of a chartered TLD, shouldn't it? If ICANN were to delegate ".naa" to you, would you look kindly on them interfering about how you run it? Which again is why I think that there is a rather messy can of worms being opened by this as it really has to be made sure it is done right first time... > If you'd like to point out the areas where two extremes of the policy/locality > model differ, I'll be happy to try and suggest how the difference may be the > result of assumptions which may not be true. Damn, you've done it again :-) Can you repeat that last paragraph a little clearer please as I don't understand it. (not trying to be funny). (...) > Philip votes against _generic_generic_generic_ gTLDs. > Dave, John, and others vote against _chartered_chartered_chartered_ gTLDs. No Eric, I do NOT vote against chartered TLDs (g is for generic in my book). I have no problem in ".naa" being put in the legacy roots. I wonder if it won't create tension and problems WITHIN the I.A.N. community, which is why I pose all those questions above, but I do believe that to be an internal matter for that "community" (or conglomerate of communities) to resolve. I object to mixing these TLDs as I consider them completely different animals. Linking inclusion of one to the other is asking for trouble. I presume that you will agree in general terms that the issues to be resolved are those that I pointed out. They are completely different worlds (the issues). I would vote for something along the lines of 6-10 gTLDs to be introduced initially, and have a recomendation from somewhere else (subworkgroup of WG-C?) to take care of the chartered TLD issue (which might recommend also 6-10 chartered TLDs to be introduced initially). Just keep them separate. I can't see the constructiveness of forcing both together. Am I for or against the political system of Tuvalu? No idea, just not bothered by it one way or another and don't want to get involved. I am sorry if you are offended by the fact that I am not militant in defending the creation of ".naa", but do not take that to mean that I want it NOT to be created. I hope you understand my thoughts a little better. Yours, John Broomfield. ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #84 *************************