From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #85 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Thursday, April 13 2000 Volume 01 : Number 085 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:26:38 -0700 From: "Bret A. Fausett" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Please Explain "No on 1, Yes on 2" (More) Thanks, John. That was very helpful. So now I understand one version of N/Y/x, where the "No" on #1 is based on support for 6-10 purely open gTLDs, on the belief that mixing in chartered TLDs will bog us down and delay everything too long. I can understand that point of view (though I disagree that the chartered issue can't be handled expeditiously). Is that the only basis for voting N/Y/x? Anything else? -- Bret ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 15:00:55 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: [wg-c] Please Explain "No on 1, Yes on 2" (More) At 02:42 PM 4/12/00 -0400, John Charles Broomfield wrote: All TLDs should be chartered. The charter defines if the TLD is generic, or restricted, or whatever. That way there is no blockage. If the restricted TLD's charter can't be figured out, then it doesn't delay any other TLD from being in the root (i.e. even other restricted TLDs which do have a sound charter). Generic TLDs (the .COM type) will end up with a fairly boilerplate "generic" charter. >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 18:16:59 -0400 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] Please Explain "No on 1, Yes on 2" (More) John, I don't actually need militant Tuvaluvians, thanks for the offer, but I will take a box of Girl Scout cookies if you can spare those. Mints please. > If you'd like to point out the areas where two extremes ... We've been stuck with a model which has two aspects, the NSI TLDs and the ccTLDs. At an earlier point in time the NSI (and IANA) TLDs had policy to define them, ISPs in .net, 501(c)(3)s in .org, and communists in .com. At some earlier point in time all the ccTLDs had territorial jurisdictions to define them, .ie for the Irish, .us for an idle tree, and .tu for militant Tuvaluvians. Over time the NSI TLDs have lost their policy definition, and some ccTLDs have lost their territorial jurisdictional definition. Non-unique TLDs for territorial jurisdictions is awkward, and unique TLDs for policy definitions is also awkward. We've none of the former, and the NSI monopoly is the instance of the latter. Is it possible to have stronger policy than "none"? Yes. Hence all of our discussions of charters or sponsored or ... policy. Is it possible to have other scopes than political geography? Yes. We've got one already (Antarctica), the EU is in the wings, and scope could be as useful as (northern hemisphere) circumpolar, or international-waters. Hence all of our (outside of WG-C) discussion of jurisdiction, or lack of. Now, if you posit that some charter ought to exhaust the viable space of policy/scope/business-model, hence a fundamental difference exists between the two extremes of policy/locality models, then I think you err. To use .NAA as an example: policy scope business-model ------------------------+-----------------------+------------------- treaty (t) US&CA not-for-profit (n4p) t+status (s) US or CA or US&CA&MX n4p or 4p t+s+resident (r) North America n4p, 4p, US/CA tax t+s+r+other-indig (o) NA+trust areas n4p,4p,tax,UN fund ... There appears to be quite a few service and business propositions available to compete with which ever one is "first". The words "Treaty" and "Status" are terms of art in Federal Indian (US) and Aboriginal (CA) law, concerning identity. My point is that the claim made (charters exhaust markets) is not convincing, I could compete with myself if the nurses wouldn't give me so much medication. Thanks for clearing up the final point where I attempted to distinguish between Philip's vote (and voting history and block membership) and yours and Daves. Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 11:26:39 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: [wg-c] Consensus call Item 1: Yes (with the reservation that nothing tangible has yet been officially proposed by ICANN, only the pre-existing RFC1591 submissions) Item 2: Abstain (close, but not close enough for a cigar) Item 3: Abstain (read the history about the Tower of Babylon) Best Regards, Simon - -- ### ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 15:50:01 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Consensus call - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12-Apr-2000 Simon Higgs wrote: > > Item 1: Yes (with the reservation that nothing tangible has yet been > officially proposed by ICANN, only the pre-existing RFC1591 submissions) Those are really "Jon Postel" submissions (which even he later disclaimed), and have no relevance to this process or to ICANN, thank you. - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE49P2Z8zLmV94Pz+IRAkJHAKCsul39Jaf0D8/a7G3wSSO3GsnPBACeOWNq BiPhzDMW8kihksJNjMzWv4Q= =t5k9 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 16:10:22 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Consensus call - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 13-Apr-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote: >> Those are really "Jon Postel" submissions (which even he later > disclaimed), and >> have no relevance to this process or to ICANN, thank you. > > Sorry, I have to call you on this one. Please present documentation of Jon > Postel > "disclaiming" the list which he posted, or retract. > > Thanks much, His ignoring them and trying to go ahead with the IAHC plan instead was a pretty clear statement that he was disclaiming those submissions and not considering them. In both situations he had no authority anyway, so this whole thread is moot. End of story. - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE49QJe8zLmV94Pz+IRAkdFAJ9Cr3kupbGlREwJnKvuyN6zJVkTlgCeOLqg eqniCNegV/g8+QJ9hgV8WJQ= =2ql6 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 17:16:44 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Consensus call > > Sorry, I have to call you on this one. Please present documentation of Jon > > Postel > > "disclaiming" the list which he posted, or retract. > > > > Thanks much, > > His ignoring them and trying to go ahead with the IAHC plan instead was a > pretty clear statement that he was disclaiming those submissions and not > considering them. > > In both situations he had no authority anyway, so this whole thread is moot. > > End of story. No, not by a long shot. You said that he disclaimed them. That's not ignoring, not routing-around, and not anything else but what you claimed. He posted the list *AFTER* initiating the IAHC plan, by the way, so even if your argument were valid, it is incorrect. Authority is irrelevant, as we're talking about Postel's intentions and desires here. In fact, in conversations shortly before his death, he expressed sadness at the way things had gone. You just made a claim that is flatly false. I won't hold out for an apology, but you really shouldn't make things up to support your opinion. Christopher ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 09:13:51 +0900 From: Kilnam Chon Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT On Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 11:29:18AM -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > > 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 : 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 on policy development. start with INFORMATIONAL WG. we had discussion on this topic at ccTLD constituency in Cairo, and concluded to recommend to have the informational WG to DNSO starting from July 2000 after we receive the "final draft of IETF idn WG on requirement", but not at Cairo DNSO Meeting, which we believe is premature. IETF has to look into the technical issue first to find out if the mulitilingaul domain names are feasible technically. Having the policy development without investigation on the technical issues is premature. At the same time, there are much development and deployment of the multilingual domain names throughout the world. Therefore, we should recommend to have INFORMATIONAL WG first at the next ICANN DNSO meeting in July 2000, which would identify the issues related to the policy development as well as other relevant issues. chon > > Jon ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 17:10:35 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Consensus call > Those are really "Jon Postel" submissions (which even he later disclaimed), and > have no relevance to this process or to ICANN, thank you. Sorry, I have to call you on this one. Please present documentation of Jon Postel "disclaiming" the list which he posted, or retract. Thanks much, Christopher ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 17:47:08 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Consensus call > I'm not rewriting history, Chris, you and Simon are trying to. I'm just > calling you on it. Shades of "am not! you are!" Each and every one of Simon's posts has had links to archived postings by the people in question. Simon's posts are backed-up by verifiable evidence. How can history be re-written when all Simon does is call attention to the actual postings and documents? Yours, on the other hand, are simply your opinion, crafted to support your personal vision of how things "should be" rather than how things are. I'm sure the majority of people reading this list (and not posting) aren't fooled by the FUD and rhetoric coming out of you, William. Thankfully, what we claim, counterclaim, and debate here is mostly irrelevant. Facts are facts, and they tend to carry the day when push comes to shove. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 16:49:42 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Consensus call - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 13-Apr-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote: > I'm sure the majority of people reading this list (and not posting) aren't > fooled by the FUD and rhetoric coming out of you, William. No Chris, I'm sure that the majority are not fooled by yours and Simon's attempts to twist history and facts to bolster claims to TLDs that you self claimed, and have no right to, and have no right to expect any advanced standing to. - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE49QuW8zLmV94Pz+IRAjGYAJ49lIng1hR21tbst2Gk/9bLvKQFRgCgirAM fclog02NUsC9ws87LZXWqNs= =p+ZK - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 16:32:55 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Consensus call - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 13-Apr-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote: > He posted the list *AFTER* initiating the IAHC plan, by the way, so > even if your argument were valid, it is incorrect. The act of posting the list means nothing, Chris. > Authority is irrelevant No, it really isn't. To make you happy, I'll rephrase (means the same damn thing though): "The list has no relevance whatsoever, and even Postel would not recognize it as binding or valid or having any standing whatsoever." - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE49Qen8zLmV94Pz+IRAoY/AJ4gMp8L0uJ7JqfuIIi6Ufl9cagXMgCdGFuJ nnlLWERMPaRf+C5bJkDIrhY= =lvde - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 16:39:12 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Consensus call - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 13-Apr-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote: > But please stop trying to rewrite history and put meaning or intention > into Postel's actions, when it's clear from his own writings that he felt > otherwise. I'm not rewriting history, Chris, you and Simon are trying to. I'm just calling you on it. - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE49Qkg8zLmV94Pz+IRArWdAKD4dtpjWrWWxJVtbc6duz4UHXwqNQCgg7Zq S9OXlBTA4dK/XKW3qGf4sqE= =HHbl - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 18:20:10 -0700 From: Justin McCarthy Subject: [wg-c] Convenience II I'm going to request that the job of vote-tallying be given to someone that is less partial than Brunner. The probability of him making so many Brunner-convenient mistakes with the frequency that he has made them with is highly suspect. Again, Eric, you have left me off your list--and this time I can only assume it's because I didn't vote for the issue of wg-c chartering domain names such as your locus of motivation in this committee-- ".naa". - -Justin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 17:39:55 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Consensus call > To make you happy, I'll rephrase (means the same damn thing though): > "The list has no relevance whatsoever, and even Postel would not recognize it as > binding or valid or having any standing whatsoever." Well, no, that's not true either. You're stating your opinion here, which is just that - an opinion. Jon, on numerous occasions, expressed support for the RFC-1591 process. That's why he kept the list in the first place. Even the creation of the IAHC process didn't change that opinion. His posting of the list was for the use of the IAHC, in fact (see his posting as well as subsequent public postings if you don't believe this). Binding? No, probably not. Valid? Yes, certainly - unless you have reason to believe that Postel erred in its creation. Standing? Well, that's going to be one for the courts, I fear. But please stop trying to rewrite history and put meaning or intention into Postel's actions, when it's clear from his own writings that he felt otherwise. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 18:12:44 -0600 From: katie@imt.net Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT 4/12/00 we 6:05 pm mdt - ---- Original Message ----- At 11:29 AM 4/11/00 -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: >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: 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. The development of standards for representation of non-ASCII character sets should be left to the IETF. Kathryn Vestal katie@imt.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 21:01:06 -0400 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Re: [wg-c] Consensus call Um . . . folks . . . speaking as the WG co-chair, I think that we've beaten the "what happened in 1995" topic to death. If you must continue this argument, please do it off-list. Jon At 05:10 PM 4/12/00 -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote: >> Those are really "Jon Postel" submissions (which even he later >disclaimed), and >> have no relevance to this process or to ICANN, thank you. > >Sorry, I have to call you on this one. Please present documentation of Jon >Postel >"disclaiming" the list which he posted, or retract. > >Thanks much, > >Christopher > > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 22:41:18 -0400 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Re: [wg-c] Convenience II Nobody gave Eric "the job" of tallying votes; he does it as a volunteer. Anyone else on the list is equally free to start posting his or her own vote tallies. I keep my own count, but -- since Eric is performing this useful public service -- I regularly check my own list against his so that I can catch any errors I may have made. (FWIW, Eric was explicit about the one intentional omission from his list. See , final sentence. You don't seem to have disappointed him.) Jon At 06:20 PM 4/12/00 -0700, Justin McCarthy wrote: > >I'm going to request that the job of vote-tallying be given >to someone that is less partial than Brunner. The >probability of him making so many Brunner-convenient >mistakes with the frequency that he has made them with is >highly suspect. Again, Eric, you have left me off your >list--and this time I can only assume it's because I didn't >vote for the issue of wg-c chartering domain names such as >your locus of motivation in this committee-- ".naa". >-Justin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 22:53:31 -0400 From: Craig Simon Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE YES. This is a vote to move foreward. I agree with Dave Crocker that lumping all these different kinds of TLDs together might hold up action on truly open gTLDs, which should be the priority. But the risk is worth taking, because I don't see momentum for anything else. > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO NO. If someone at the next level wants to think about criteria, they should look at that list, but that doesn't mean they should follow it. > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE NO. I'll align with the sentiment that it's premature scope creep. Craig Simon ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 23:33:52 -0400 From: Eric Brunner Subject: [wg-c] Administrivia Evening (EDT) all, The count and amount as of this evening are below. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ name | paper | 8 Dec | CAIRO | March | April | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alex Kamantauskas | | | NEW | YES | Y.N.N | Bret Fausett | | | NEW | YES | Y.Y.a | Christopher Ambler | B | yes | | YES | Y.Y.N | Craig Simon | F | yes | | YES | Y.N.N | Daiva Tamulioniene | | yes | | | N.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 | Harold Feld | | yes | | YES | Y.Y.a | Harald Tveit Alvestrand | | | NEW | YES | Y.y.N | Ian Penman | | yes | | YES | Y.Y.Y | James Love | | | NEW | YES | Y.Y.Y | James Seng | | | NEW | | Y.Y.a | Jay Parker | | yes | | YES | Y.Y.a | Jean-Michel Becar | A | yes | | YES | Y.Y.Y | 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 | Josh Elliot | | | NEW | YES | Y.N.N | Karl Auerbach | | yes | | YES | y.N.N | Kathryn Vestal | B | yes | | YES | Y.Y.N | Keith Gymer | C | no | | NO | N.Y.N | Kevin J. Connolly | | no | | YES | y.N.N | Kilnam Chon | | yes | | | Y.Y.N | Mark Langston | B | yes | | YES | y.N.N | Milton Mueller | B | yes | | | Y.Y.N | Patrick Greenwell | | | NEW | | Y.N.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 | Simon Higgs | | | NEW | | Y.a.a | Timothy M. Denton | B | yes | | | Y.N.Y | Timothy Vienneau | | | NEW | YES | Y.Y.N | Tony Linares | | | NEW | YES | Y.Y.Y | William X. Walsh | B | yes | | YES | Y.Y.N | kendall@paradigm.nu | | | NEW | YES | Y.Y.Y | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Y.x.x Votes: 40 (of 150 maximum possible, 54 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 #2: 26 Yes, 13 No, 1 Abstain Corrections: Mark Langstrom wants to raise his little "y" to a big "Y", Harald caught a wishful typo and does a "y" on S/K, not "N", and some errant autonoma insists that Justin McCarthy exists. Comments: The PPC party typically votes just prior to the ballot period closure, and may vote N.Y.a. Current N.Y.x voters are: Tamulioniene, Gymer (PPC), Sheppard (the "S" in S/K), and Denton (PPB) Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 23:44:59 -0400 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] Convenience II True Confessions: I sold Justin McCarthy's vote to Tony Rutkowski, a disenfranchised reptile. Tony had a better use for it as a coaster during HappyHour@NSI. Sworn on a short stack of pancakes, Eric > I'm going to request that the job of vote-tallying be given > to someone that is less partial than Brunner. The > probability of him making so many Brunner-convenient > mistakes with the frequency that he has made them with is > highly suspect. Again, Eric, you have left me off your > list--and this time I can only assume it's because I didn't > vote for the issue of wg-c chartering domain names such as > your locus of motivation in this committee-- ".naa". > - -Justin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 00:46:19 -0400 From: "Greg Schuckman" Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT Dear Colleagues: Before I cast my votes, let me state that Jonathan Weinberg posted on Monday (and several times in the past) the list rules but they have been virtually ignored. If this working group is to have any chance of being workable for the time it has left, not to mention inclusive, there has to be enforcement of the rules. Too often, the majority of us in the wg-c have been subject to mass postings that should have been taken offline from the start. I did not sign up to watch the saga unfold between a few members of the wg-c; I signed up to participate in a dialogue about new gTLDs with a thoughtful group of people from around the world on a rather important subject. Jonathan, please, put an end to the static on this listserv and focus the energies and attention of the wg-c as a whole on the subject at hand. Enough said. PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE [YES] 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 [YES*] Criteria for assessing a gTLD application, subject to current technical constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should be based on all of the following principles... * The footnote here is that I would prefer to look at the S/K principles as guidelines, not necessarily hard and fast criteria for selecting the string. There is a difference in the semantics as these principles (as worded) sound compulsory as opposed to calling them "guidelines" which are encouraged, but voluntary. I would certainly hope that those gTLD applications that comformed to the guidelines would be more favorably received than those that did not. PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE [NO] WG-C recommends that the Names Council charter a working group to develop policy regarding internationalized domain names using non-ASCII characters. A strong case has been made that the IETF has domain over this issue and ICANN should not interfere with that effort. Perhaps the selection of a formal liaison between ICANN and IETF on this issue would suffice. Respectfully, Greg Schuckman ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 22:42:07 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: [wg-c] Consensus call At 03:50 PM 4/12/00 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote: The farce continues. I vote "yes" and get attacked for it. Sheesh... > > Item 1: Yes (with the reservation that nothing tangible has yet been > > officially proposed by ICANN, only the pre-existing RFC1591 submissions) > >Those are really "Jon Postel" submissions (which even he later >disclaimed), and >have no relevance to this process or to ICANN, thank you. Document your false claims - if you can - or stop wasting everyone's bandwidth. Or just read this letter and notice the National Science Foundation's official position regarding RFC1591 and new TLDs: http://name.space.xs2.net/law/answers/letters/NSF-NSI08111997.jpg "The Foundation [NSF] and NSI agreed that new TLDs would be added only in accordance with Request For Comments 1591." The evidence is overwhelmingly against you. Best Regards, Simon - -- DNS is not a sacred cow that cannot be replaced by something better. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 22:52:47 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Consensus call Simon, I've given up on these guys. Those who have complained about the volume here are right, and I must apologize for being a part of it. From now on, when claims like theirs are made, for which clear documented evidence shows it to be false, I'll just say, "The facts speak louder than you do" and leave it at that. Besides, as I've said, the arguments on this list don't really amount to much in the grand scheme of things. We recommend to the DNSO, and they recommend to ICANN, and ICANN compares that with the decisions they've already made. Those that match, they call consensus, and those that don't, they call consensus. No typo. Last one on the list, please turn out the lights. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web - -----Original Message----- From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Simon Higgs Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 10:42 PM To: wg-c@dnso.org Subject: Re: [wg-c] Consensus call At 03:50 PM 4/12/00 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote: The farce continues. I vote "yes" and get attacked for it. Sheesh... > > Item 1: Yes (with the reservation that nothing tangible has yet been > > officially proposed by ICANN, only the pre-existing RFC1591 submissions) > >Those are really "Jon Postel" submissions (which even he later >disclaimed), and >have no relevance to this process or to ICANN, thank you. Document your false claims - if you can - or stop wasting everyone's bandwidth. Or just read this letter and notice the National Science Foundation's official position regarding RFC1591 and new TLDs: http://name.space.xs2.net/law/answers/letters/NSF-NSI08111997.jpg "The Foundation [NSF] and NSI agreed that new TLDs would be added only in accordance with Request For Comments 1591." The evidence is overwhelmingly against you. Best Regards, Simon - -- DNS is not a sacred cow that cannot be replaced by something better. ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #85 *************************