From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #89 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Monday, April 17 2000 Volume 01 : Number 089 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 17:14:44 -0400 From: "Milton Mueller" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Convenience II - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Justin McCarthy" > [Brunner's] locus of motivation in this committee-- ".naa". Couldn't we all agree that Brunner richly deserves the TLD ".nyaa" (?) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 17:33:14 -0400 From: "Milton Mueller" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Please Explain "No on 1, Yes on 2" - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip Sheppard" > Problem1: > This is to closely linked with the WG C report proposition that "initial > rollout" means 6-10. As many on this list agree, charters work when there > are many of them. We do agree, but I thought we also agreed that any progression from "0" to "many" must at some point pass through "6-10" > > Problem 2. > As Keith Gymer wrote "open" TLDs may mean undifferentiated which returns us > to the argument over what constitutes strong competition to dot com - > imitation or value added. Eh? If "open" means "undifferentiated" then it conflicts with principle #4. Not too late to change your vote, Phil. - --MM ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 15:38:50 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] Convenience II At 05:14 PM 4/16/00 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote: >Couldn't we all agree that Brunner richly deserves the TLD ".nyaa" (?) ad hominem, ad nauseam. Thanks, Miltie. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 07:54:36 +0900 From: "Robert F. Connelly" Subject: [wg-c] Re: [wg-b] Revised IPC Proposal At 11:45 16-04-2000 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: >All the world's trademarks times 20 is a *lot* of conflicts. Could be enough to oversubscribe a complete gTLD, methinks;-} BobC ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 18:59:22 -0400 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] reposted for Hal Lubsen >From: "Hal Lubsen" >To: , "Jonathan Weinberg" >Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT >Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 15:17:09 -0400 > >Item One: Yes >Item Two: Yes >Item Three: No > >Hal Lubsen >Domain Bank, Inc. >> >> 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: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 09:03:21 +0800 From: tinwee@pobox.org.sg Subject: Re: [wg-c] reposted for Hal Lubsen Item One: Yes Item Two: Yes Item Three: Yes but only as a informational/coordination/liaison working group and to - charter specialist groups like the nascent Multilingual Internet Names Consortium MINC to elaborate on policy issue and technical issues, - IETF's IDN working group to handle technical protocol issues etc. Tin Wee - -- Dr Tan Tin Wee National University of Singapore tinwee@pobox.org.sg > >> 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: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 22:17:34 -0400 From: "Anthony Lupo" Subject: [wg-c] Consensus Calls -Reply PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE Yes PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO Yes PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE Abstain ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 12:22:47 +1000 From: Andrew Dalgleish 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. > [Andrew Dalgleish] NO. I think the initial rollout should not include restricted domains as this will reduce the number of open domains available. I think restricted domains are required, but not in the initial 6-10. > 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. [Andrew Dalgleish] 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. [Andrew Dalgleish] NO. I think this should be an IETF issue. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 23:48:38 -0300 From: Raul Echeberria 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. My tought is that AT LEAST 50% should be "restricted", "chartered" or "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. Yes. This set of points sound reasonable. They donīt say that the registry is who apply for the TLD. Because that i vote 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. > Nes, Yo. The point is important but it seems that IETF is working on that. I support Kilnam's position on starting with an informational WG. Raul Echeberria raul@inia.org.uy ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 22:32:31 -0500 From: Erick Iriarte Subject: Re: [wg-c] Consensus Calls -Reply PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE Yes. I Think is possible that 50% of the new tld be "restricted" PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO Yes PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE Abstain Erick Iriarte Ahon Derecho.Org America http://derecho.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 09:32:51 +0200 From: Ann-Catherine Andersson Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE Yes > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO Yes > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE Abstain Regards - -------------------------------------------------- Ann-Catherine Andersson Telia AB, Carrier & Networks +46-8 4568927 (PHONE) Box 10707 +46-8 4568935 (FAX) S-121 29 Stockholm +46-70-6868209 (MOBILE) SE aca@telia.net - ---------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 10:11:17 +0200 From: "Philip Sheppard" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Please Explain "No on 1, Yes on 2" Milton, You point out that "IF open may mean undifferentiated than this conflicts with principle 4". You are right. This would be an internal contradiction. My NO vote in part reflects a judgement on the potential for such a contradiction and the potential for selective reading of a WG C report. Philip. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 17:05:05 +0800 From: "YJ Park" Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT Item 1: YES Item 2: YES Item 3: Conditional YES. ====================================================== ICANN DNSO Working Group: Infomational WG MINC: Policy-making orgnization regarding Multilingual Internet Names IETF: Technical standard regarding Multilingual Internet Names ====================================================== Regards, YJ Park Names Council of Non-Commercial Constituency ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 06:53:01 -0400 From: Eric Brunner Subject: [wg-c] Administrivia (041700) The Full Monty follows. Errors to me. Cheers, Eric 139 subscribers of list 'wg-c' (revised as of 11 Apr 2000) 15 subscribers of list 'wg-c-digest' (revised as of 11 Apr 2000) Note that Jeff Trexler is counted 3 times, as is Mark Measday, so the number of actual subscribers to both wg-c lists is 150, not 154. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ name | paper | 8 Dec | CAIRO | March | April | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A.M. Rutkowski | B | | | | EXIT | Ajay Joshi | | | NEW | | N.Y.N | Alex Kamantauskas | | | NEW | YES | Y.N.N | Amar Andersson | A,D | | | | Y.Y.a | Andrew Dalgleish | | | NEW | | N.Y.a | Andrew Lutts | | yes | | | | Andrew Watt | | | NEW | | | Ann-Catherine Andersson | | yes | | | | Annie Renard | C | no | | | Y.Y.N | Anthony Lupo | C | no | | NO | Y.Y.a | Astrid Broich | | yes | | | | Barbara Dooley | | no | | | | Beth Kennedy | | | | | | Bill Blitch | | | NEW | | | Bob Broxton | | no | | | | Bret Fausett | | | NEW | YES | Y.Y.a | Caroline Chicoine | C | no | | NO | | Chris Burton | | | | | | Chris Conant | | yes | | | | Chris Pelling | | | NEW | | | Christopher Ambler | B | yes | | YES | Y.Y.N | Constanze Schmidt | | | | | | Craig Simon | F | yes | | YES | Y.N.N | Daiva Tamulioniene | | yes | | | N.Y.N | Daniel Pare | | | NEW | | | Dave Crocker | A,D | yes | | YES | N.N.Y | David Maher | A,D | yes | | YES | | David Rosenblatt | | | | | | David Schutt | | | NEW | | Y.N.N | Dongman Lee | | yes | | | Y.Y.y | Edler & Nebel Softwaree | | | NEW | | | Elisabeth Porteneuve | | no | | | | Eric Brunner | A,D,E | yes | | YES | Y.N.N | Eric Iriarte | | | NEW | | Y.Y.a | Eric Lee | | | | | | Eva Froelich | |abstain| | | | Francois-7ways | | | NEW | | | Fred Vogelstein | | | NEW | | | Frederick Duca | | | | | | Geoffrey Dalman | | | | | | Glenn Kowack | | | | | | Greg Schuckman | | | NEW | YES | Y.y.N | Hal Lubsen | | yes | | | Y.Y.N | Harold Feld | | yes | | YES | Y.Y.a | Harald Tveit Alvestrand | | | NEW | YES | Y.y.N | Hiroyasu Murakoshi | | | NEW | | | Ian Penman | | yes | | YES | Y.Y.Y | Ivan Pope | | | | | | J. William Semich | | no | | YES | | James Love | | | NEW | YES | Y.Y.Y | James Seng | | | NEW | | Y.Y.a | Javier Sola | D | | | | | Jay Parker | | yes | | YES | Y.Y.a | Jean-Michel Becar | A | yes | | YES | Y.Y.Y | Jeff Shrewsbury | | yes | | YES | Y.Y.Y | Jeff Trexler | | | NEW | | | Jeffrey Neuman | | | | | | Jerry Yap | | | NEW | | Y.Y.Y | Joe Kelsey | | | NEW | YES | N.N.N | John Charles Broomfield | | yes | | YES | N.Y.Y | John Giannandrea | | | | | | John Lewis | | no | | | | John Zehr | | | | | | Jonathan Graehl | | | NEW | | Y.N.N | Jonathan Weinberg | A | yes | | | | Jonathan Winer | | | NEW | NO | Y.Y.Y | Josh Elliot | | | NEW | YES | Y.N.N | Joop Teernstra | B | yes | | YES | N.N.N | Joseph Friedman | A,D | yes | | YES | | Justine McCarthy | | | NEW | YES | N.N.N | Karl Auerbach | | yes | | YES | y.N.N | Kathryn Vestal | B | yes | | YES | Y.Y.N | Kathryn KL | | | NEW | YES | | Keith Gymer | C | no | | NO | N.Y.N | Ken Cartwright | | | NEW | | | Ken Stubbs | | yes | | | Y.Y.Y | Kendall Dawson | | | NEW | YES | Y.Y.Y | Kent Crispin | D,E | | | | | Kevin J. Connolly | | no | | YES | N.N.N | Kilnam Chon | | yes | | | Y.Y.N | Kit Winter | | | NEW | | Y.Y.N | Kyle Taylor | | | | YES | | Lisa Nelmida | | | NEW | | | Loo, Douglas | | | | | | Mariah Garvey | | | NEW | NO | | Marilyn Cade | C | no | | NO | N.N.N | Mark Langston | B | yes | | YES | y.N.N | Mark Measday | A | yes | | YES | | Martin Schwimmer | C | no | | | N.N.N | Michael Palage | | no | | | | Michael Prescott | | | NEW | | | Michael Schneider | | | | | | Mikki Barry | B | yes | | YES | | Milton Mueller | B | yes | | | Y.Y.N | Myron L. Rosmarin | | | | | | Myung Sun Chung | | | | | | Neeran Saraf | | | | | | Olivier Kozlowski | | yes | | | | Oscar Robles | | | | | | Otho Ross | | no | | | | Patrick Greenwell | | | NEW | | Y.N.N | Paul Garrin | B | yes | | YES | | Paul Gregson | | | | | | Paul Stahura | A | yes | | | | Petter Rindforth | C | no | | NO | Y.Y.a | Philip Sheppard | | no | | NO | N.Y.N | Raul Echeberria | |abstain| | | Y.Y.n | Rebecca Nesson | | yes | | | | Richard Campbell | | | NEW | | Y.Y.N | Richard Kroon | | | NEW | | Y.Y.N | Richard Lindsay | | yes | | | | Rick H. Wesson | | yes | | YES | N.N.N | Rob Hall | | | | | | Robert F. Connelly | A | yes | | YES | Y.Y.Y | Robert Keller | | | NEW | | | Robert Waters | | | | | | Rod Dixon | A,B | yes | | YES | Y.Y.Y | Roeland Meyer | G | yes | | YES | | Roger Cochetti | | | | | | Ross Wm. Rader | | yes | | YES | N.N.N | Scott Pollard | | no | | YES | | Shunichi Otagaki | | | NEW | | | Siegfried Langenbach | A | yes | | YES | | Simon Higgs | | | NEW | | Y.a.a | Soo Jeong LEE | | | | | | Stephanie Rulfs | | | NEW | | | Stephen Goodman | | | | | | Stuart Ellis | | | NEW | | | Sue Leader | | | | | | Timothy M. Denton | B | yes | | | Y.N.Y | Timothy Vienneau | | | NEW | YES | Y.Y.N | Tolga Yurderi | | | | | | Tom Newell | | | | | | Tony Bradley | | | NEW | | | Tony Linares | | | NEW | YES | Y.Y.Y | Tsuneo Yoshioka | | | NEW | | | Warwick Rothnie | | | NEW | NO | | Werner Staub | | yes | | | | Wes Monroe | | | | | | Will Donaldson | | | NEW | | | William X. Walsh | B | yes | | YES | Y.Y.N | Younjung Park | |abstain| | | Y.Y.y | hyeyoung kang | | | | | | etienne@telebot.net | | | NEW | | | j.eder@berkom.de | | | NEW | | | Jothan Frakes jothan | | | NEW |ABSTAIN| | jwheeler@boardwatch.com | | | NEW | | | tinwee@pobox.org.sg | | | NEW | | Y.Y.y | m.janiaud@paris.infonie.| | | | | | zehl@berkom.de | | | NEW | | | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 09:43:33 -0400 From: bill@mail.nic.nu (J. William Semich) 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 - half could be restricted/chartered, half unrestricted/open > >PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO NO > >PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE > NO - this is a matter for the private sector (www.minc.org) and the IETF to work out. - --Bill Semich .NU Domain http://whats.nu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 16:14:03 +0200 (MET DST) From: Elisabeth Porteneuve 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 restricted TLDs only in the initial stage > > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO > ==> 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, it is for IETF. Elisabeth Porteneuve ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 15:03:30 -0400 From: Eric Brunner Subject: [wg-c] Wampumpeag.org Comments on WG-B Work Product 17 April, 2000 Michael Palage Chair, Working Group B/Registrars Constituency Secretariat Domain Name Supporting Organization Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Michael, On behalf of the NAA Registry proposants I have the honor to respond in the limited time available concerning the work product of WG-B. At no point during the past nine months has the doctrine of "famous marks" acquired a definition sufficiently specific to list any but isolated marks as examples. No list of "famous marks" appears to exist in usable form or is offered in reference to support a claim that the better portion of the time WG-B has spent hasn't been an existential rathole. The point of asserting the supremacy of a doctrine, even one which is not resistant to definition, over all forms of meaning associated with the DNS except disjoint territorial jurisdictions is interesting. More interesting is that the doctrine appealed to, a property right, exists and is capable of definition within territorial jurisdictions. The banal construction of such a novel assertion is that Network Solutions has managed to entice the doctrinaire to defend NSI's monopoly in the DNS registry backend business. The more interesting one is that a new body of International Law is being birthed, unfortunately by what appears to be a Confederacy of Dunces. Neither the Paris Convention nor the TRIPS agreement envision establishment of mechanisms which make reference to a legal doctrine having no existence external to themselves, yet make no reference to the substantive definition of the scope of the doctrine they contain, or is nacent within them. No list, Treaty Instruments abandoned, unnecessary supra-jurisdictional regulatory urges. This is less than the ICANN VI-B(3)(b)(7) Constituency requires to establish mechanisms for issues other than DNS labels viewed as "trademarks". The current ICANN VI-B(3)(b)(7) Constituency began its tenure by ruling it had no duty to accept, or state the criteria for rejecting, an Indigenous Intellectual Property body for membership. This places ICANN's tax status in the United States in play. Over the past nine months it has spent all of its political capital on trademarks, and no longer can initiate policy making process for patent and copyright. It is as if the on-line world and the leading jurisdictions -- the NAFTA, EU and MITI policy makers, decided that all there really is no content, no innovations, to the New Economy, just a global Ponzi scheme in brands. This is a weak rung in the ladder ICANN must climb to become the "new corporation", and it is not the case that the on-line world and policy communities have lost sight of the importance of PKI, of Privacy, of digital watermarks, of technical innovation -- of trafficing in more than just names. The position suggested by Harald Tveit Alvestrand (Maxware, Norway) is one we think prudent at this point in ICANN's limited institutional life, and the broader problem of commerce and WIPO left with WIPO. We close with a statement made by Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States, in 1907 on the central issue of trade, law and power: Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. ICANN's current ICANN VI-B(3)(b)(7) Constituency, the authors of its current incapacity to act on its mandate, both that of the US Department of Commerce and that of the Internet's user communities, have made President Wilson's American Triumphalism their own -- the Net is Property, and none of it is Indigenous, and increasingly none of it looks even worth having at all. In conclusion, the Alvestrand proposal is the only one which interests us as the proponents of a TLD and of TLDs organized around similar principles. If it is any consolation, it hasn't been an easy nine months in WG-C either. Eric Brunner Coordinator, Indigenous Intellectual Property Constituency http://www.world.std.com/~iipc/our-iipc.html Coordinator, North American Aboriginal Registry http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19991023.NCwgc-report.html#Position Paper E CTO, Wampumpeag ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 13:46:16 -0700 From: "Paul Stahura" Subject: RE: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT hope it is not too late to submit my vote... > > 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 Regards, Paul Stahura > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 14:31:07 -0700 From: "Paul Stahura" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs There is a pent-up demand for domains in the new TLD's. I don't think there is an argument about that. There is no way you can "outlaw" this demand. I do not see any problem with registrars building queues of names that their customers would like to register as soon as they are able to. A round-robbin scheme on day one of a new TLD will ensure fairness. On the days before day-one of the release of a new tld you will have registrars "pre-registering" names, even if it is just one name. There is no way to stop it, that I can see. A registrar's "pre-registration" queue may only be one name in length. Is ICANN to outlaw registrar business models? That said, I do not support registrars "pre-registering" names for a fee because there is no guarentee that the person "pre-registering" the name will actually get (register) the name. Registrants should only be charged if the registrar actually registeres the name at the registry. Regards Paul Stahura > -----Original Message----- > From: William X. Walsh [mailto:william@userfriendly.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 12:33 PM > To: John Charles Broomfield > Cc: wg-c@dnso.org; kent@songbird.com > Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > On 11-Apr-2000 John Charles Broomfield wrote: > > And with this proposal you just move the problem one rung > down. How do you > > stop someone from creating a list that will bombard the > webpages or email > > addresses of registrars and selling "preregistrations" in that list? > > First come first served. What people do independent of the > Registry or > Registrar is not our concern. Our concern is preventing this > unsavory practice > from being conducted by those who are under contract to ICANN. > > Bottom line. > > The fact remains that building a system to do what you say > does require a > certain level of expertise. And if the technical specs for > filling out the web > based forms for registration are kept confidential by the > registrars until > launch, it will go a long way towards preventing this, or delaying it > significantly. > > There are also many technical means to impede the creation of > those systems. I > would be happy to expand on those privately, so as not to > give lead time to > those on this list who would be responsible for creating > systems to circumvent > it (yes there are domain speculators in our midst :). > > - -- > 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/ > > iD8DBQE4833+8zLmV94Pz+IRAvRCAJ9K/e49KomgmQ8kAZJHRPNzPu3lVgCfR+Vk > r9CdJVC02hHvhNLXkpVBclE= > =eWx7 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #89 *************************