From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #92 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Thursday, April 20 2000 Volume 01 : Number 092 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 15:51:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Rick H Wesson Subject: [wg-c] http://www.icann.org/dnso/wgb-report-17apr00.htm wg-b report is now available... http://www.icann.org/dnso/wgb-report-17apr00.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 16:08:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Rick H Wesson Subject: [wg-c] nsi proposes to create new gTLds NSI is proposing that they help create a registry in europe, the are proposing .shop as an open gTLD and a .bank as a closed gTLD. The propose to house .shop in euroope and use everything NSI registrar has already developed including RRP protocols, procedures, and agreeemnts. they want to jump-start everything and want hel[p "move from abstract principals" in to a real solution. they want to discuss implementation consepts with the NC... Ken S has looked at it but has no comment. philip hasn't seen it in writing but is very interested in it. the document will be made a public document and is supposed to be redistributed so ask for it! - -rick ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 16:28:20 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: [wg-c] That was fun Wow, all of our work, thrown out in one fell swoop. The names council just approved their own plan, and NSI proposes a seriously crippled rollout of 2 new TLDs that will give them no serious competition at all. The game has just changed. Will the last one to leave this mailing list please turn out the lights? - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 17:34:02 -0700 From: "Mark C. Langston" Subject: Re: [wg-c] 1447PDT 4/18, DNSO NC made all our work irrelevant On Tue, Apr 18, 2000 at 06:26:16PM -0400, Kevin J. Connolly wrote: > Mr. Langston's remarks are intemperate and irresponsible. They are, > sadly, consonant with what WG-C has done (or, just as importantly > and just as sadly, failed to do). [...snip] > > Here's the part that I think it was especially improvident to say in public: > > > >One of these days, there's going to be a _real_ threat to the > >stability of the Net, and there's not much the mighty IP Constituency > >and their deep pockets can do about it. Keep throwing your muscle > >around like this, and you may find that the people who know how to > >operate the border routers, the switches, the servers hosting > >mission-critical services have had their fill of your antics, > >organize, and go on strike. And unlike a factory floor, your chances > >of finding scabs and strikebreakers to come in and run the machinery > >for you are significantly smaller. > > > > Readers should be aware that the FBI pays people (no, I'm _not_ > one of them) and runs robots (I'm not one of these, either :-) to look > for foolish statements like this. I believe the Treasury Department > has a program along these lines as well. Inviting people to commit > biological impossibilities in a public forum simply brands one as crude, > but making statements about interference with the operation of > computers connected to the Internet (such interference is a federal > crime, in case you were unaware of it) raises questions about one's > judgment. I wouldn't do it, wouldn't be prudent. > Actually, Kevin, this wasn't a threat. It was a counterpoint to the IP constituency's demonstrated willingness to use their influence to indefinitely postpone the rollout of new gTLDs and other similar destabilizing acts. If you read it again, perhaps you'd note the not-so-hidden allusions to organizing a union-like structure around network and systems administrators. It's not the first time the topic has come up in serious discussion in various circles, and it's something that might arise of necessity if things get too far out-of-hand. It's also the surest way to lobby and promote the interests of the technical folks in the trenches, who seem to be expected to remain quiet and subservient to the whims of the corporations and their cadre of lawyers. Sure, they have a voice in technical decisions, but when it comes to policy (and ICANN has quite clearly stepped out of technical management is into the arena of policymaking), that voice is lacking. What little voice there is gets drowned by those with the deep pockets and the huge legal staff. If it's illegal to so much as suggest in public that perhaps a certain faction should unionize, then I suppose I'm guilty. I certainly wouldn't be the first person guilty of such an act. - -- Mark C. Langston mark@bitshift.org Systems & Network Admin San Jose, CA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 18:06:49 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] 1447PDT 4/18, DNSO NC made all our work irrelevant - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 19-Apr-2000 Mark C. Langston wrote: > If you read it again, perhaps you'd note the not-so-hidden allusions > to organizing a union-like structure around network and systems > administrators. It's not the first time the topic has come up in > serious discussion in various circles, and it's something that might > arise of necessity if things get too far out-of-hand. It will never happen. Too much apathy amongst them to ever reach critical mass. Every attempt to get serious participation by that community in anything relating to this process has been a dismal failure. They are resigned to accepting and dealing with whatever happens, and are not even educated and current on what the situation is right now anyway. Many of them do not even understand what the shared registration system is. Organizing them has been attempted so many times with so much failure, I really don't take the possibility seriously anymore. The bottom line, to get them to participate, you would have to have a real substantive financial incentive for each and every one of them. - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE4/Qap8zLmV94Pz+IRAiQlAJ9qk7390AI92wCRZCZ6w8UXrWPlswCeMCZE 8JK+Xw4hVFIGr9PpE1QBn5M= =SODI - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 21:45:55 -0400 (EDT) From: James Love Subject: Re: [wg-c] nsi proposes to create new gTLds This is just a shot in the dark, but if the point is to create some competition, why don't we have competitive proposals to compete with NSI, rather than just have NSI run the registry that is supposed to compete with NSI? And why should NSI choose the strings for the new registries that compete with .com, .net and .org? And, why does NSI get a say on this at all? Doesn't NSI have a conflict of interest or something? Jamie On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Rick H Wesson wrote: > > NSI is proposing that they help create a registry in > europe, the are proposing .shop as an open gTLD and a .bank > as a closed gTLD. > > The propose to house .shop in euroope and use everything NSI registrar has > already developed including RRP protocols, procedures, and agreeemnts. > > they want to jump-start everything and want hel[p "move from abstract > principals" in to a real solution. > > they want to discuss implementation consepts with the NC... Ken S has > looked at it but has no comment. philip hasn't seen it in writing but is > very interested in it. > > the document will be made a public document and is supposed to be > redistributed so ask for it! > > -rick > ============================================= James Love, Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367 | http://www.cptech.org Washington, DC 20036 | love@cptech.org Voice 202/387-8030 | Fax 202/234-5176 ============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 21:44:20 -0400 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] NC Statement on new gTLDs This is the statement on new gTLDs passed at today's NC meeting. I hope to be able to post a summary of the discussion tomorrow. Jon - ------------------------------------ The Names Council determines that the report of Working Group C and related comments indicate that there exists a consensus for the introduction of new gTLDs in a measured and responsible manner. The Names Council therefore recommends to the ICANN Board that it establish a policy for the introduction of new gTLDs in a measured and responsible manner, giving due regard in the implementation of that policy to (a) promoting orderly registration of names during the initial phases; (b) minimizing the use of gTLDs to carry out infringements of intellectual property rights; and (c) recognizing the need for ensuring user confidence in the technical operation of the new TLD and the DNS as a whole. Because there is no recent experience in introducing new gTLDs, we recommend to the Board that a limited number of new top-level domains be introduced initially and that the future introduction of additional top-level domains be done only after careful evaluation of the initial introduction. The Names Council takes note of the fact that the WG C report indicates that several types of domains should be considered in the initial introduction, these being: fully open top-level domains, restricted and chartered top-level domains with limited scope, non-commercial domains and personal domains. Implementation should promote competition in the domain-name registration business at the registry and registrar levels. The Names Council recognizes that any roll-out must not jeopardize the stability of the Internet, and assumes a responsible process for introducing new gTLDs, which includes ensuring that there is close coordination with organizations dealing with Internet protocols and standards. To assist the Board in the task of introducing new gTLDs, the Names Council recommends that the ICANN staff invite expressions of interest from parties seeking to operate any new gTLD registry, with an indication as to how they propose to ensure to promote these values. We would like to extend our deep appreciation to the substantial number of participants who worked so diligently in Working Groups B and C, and want to thank them for their significant efforts in evaluating the issues that were referred to them. Recognizing the Working Group C has recently approved additional principles and that Working Group B's formal report was provided to us yesterday, we advise the Board that we will be providing supplemental recommendations in the near future. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 21:45:11 -0400 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Re: [wg-c] nsi proposes to create new gTLds Jon At 04:08 PM 4/18/00 -0700, Rick H Wesson wrote: > >NSI is proposing that they help create a registry in >europe, the are proposing .shop as an open gTLD and a .bank >as a closed gTLD. > >The propose to house .shop in euroope and use everything NSI registrar has >already developed including RRP protocols, procedures, and agreeemnts. > >they want to jump-start everything and want hel[p "move from abstract >principals" in to a real solution. > >they want to discuss implementation consepts with the NC... Ken S has >looked at it but has no comment. philip hasn't seen it in writing but is >very interested in it. > >the document will be made a public document and is supposed to be >redistributed so ask for it! > >-rick > > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 22:18:20 -0400 (EDT) From: James Love Subject: Re: [wg-c] NC Statement on new gTLDs Seemed like a positive statement to me. Not exactly what I would have written, but positive. Jamie On Tue, 18 Apr 2000, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > This is the statement on new gTLDs passed at today's NC meeting. I hope > to be able to post a summary of the discussion tomorrow. > > Jon > > ------------------------------------ > > The Names Council determines that the report of Working Group C and > related comments indicate that there exists a consensus for the > introduction of new gTLDs in a measured and responsible manner. The Names > Council therefore recommends to the ICANN Board that it establish a policy > for the introduction of new gTLDs in a measured and responsible manner, > giving due regard in the implementation of that policy to (a) promoting > orderly > registration of names during the initial phases; (b) minimizing the use of > gTLDs to carry out infringements of intellectual property rights; and (c) > recognizing the need for ensuring user confidence in the technical > operation of the new TLD and the DNS as a whole. > > Because there is no recent experience in introducing new gTLDs, we > recommend to the Board that a limited number of new top-level domains be > introduced initially and that the future introduction of additional > top-level domains be done only after careful evaluation of the initial > introduction. The Names Council takes note of the fact that the WG C report > indicates that several types of domains should be considered in the initial > introduction, these being: fully open top-level domains, restricted and > chartered top-level domains with limited scope, non-commercial domains and > personal domains. Implementation should promote competition in the > domain-name registration business at the registry and registrar levels. The > Names Council recognizes that any roll-out must not jeopardize the > stability of the Internet, and assumes a responsible process for > introducing new gTLDs, which includes ensuring that there is close > coordination with organizations dealing with Internet protocols and standards. > > To assist the Board in the task of introducing new gTLDs, the Names > Council recommends that the ICANN staff invite expressions of interest from > parties seeking to operate any new gTLD registry, with an indication as to > how they propose to ensure to promote these values. > > We would like to extend our deep appreciation to the substantial number of > participants who worked so diligently in Working Groups B and C, and > want to thank them for their significant efforts in evaluating the issues > that were referred to them. Recognizing the Working Group C has recently > approved additional principles and that Working Group B's formal report was > provided to us yesterday, we advise the Board that we will be providing > supplemental recommendations in the near future. > ============================================= James Love, Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367 | http://www.cptech.org Washington, DC 20036 | love@cptech.org Voice 202/387-8030 | Fax 202/234-5176 ============================================= ------------------------------ Date: 18 Apr 00 23:28:33 EDT From: Richard Campbell Subject: Re: [Re: [wg-c] nsi proposes to create new gTLds] How interesting: I don't think it's any coincidence that the second portion of the the proposal from NSI is a chartered TLD .BANC, which is exactly what I (the FDIC) have been interested in. Richard Campbell RCampbell@FDIC.GOV Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > > > Jon > > > At 04:08 PM 4/18/00 -0700, Rick H Wesson wrote: > > > >NSI is proposing that they help create a registry in > >europe, the are proposing .shop as an open gTLD and a .bank > >as a closed gTLD. > > > >The propose to house .shop in euroope and use everything NSI registrar has > >already developed including RRP protocols, procedures, and agreeemnts. > > > >they want to jump-start everything and want hel[p "move from abstract > >principals" in to a real solution. > > > >they want to discuss implementation consepts with the NC... Ken S has > >looked at it but has no comment. philip hasn't seen it in writing but is > >very interested in it. > > > >the document will be made a public document and is supposed to be > >redistributed so ask for it! > > > >-rick > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.amexmail.com/?A=1 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 23:47:55 -0400 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] nsi proposes to create new gTLds Jon, Thanks for the pointer. It is sort of a coin toss, which of Michael Palage's or Roger Cochetti's dramatic urges is the most comic act of the week -- Sunrise over Bolivian Trade Marks or Two Quaint Acts of Polite Differentiation. Philip Shepard's coup remains the high point of Q1. On the bright side the NC didn't take either of two extremes, invites RFPs by operator applicants, and in Paul Kane's draft (para missing in Louis Touton's final), is the reviewing task force Kent proposed. Not quite as good as pushing Philip, Michael and Roger under the first passing bus, but on the whole not bad. Should WG-C be disbanded? I think it should. The factionalism has not diminished between the B and the A/D/E papers, and the dialog between the C faction and the non-C factions ended five months ago. We were close to utility when struggling with cost and policy, but the set of distractions, external and internal were too great. As the final draft sent out under Louis Touton's signature solicits expressions of interest by operator applicants, the NAA Registry group will make its interest known to the ICANN staff. We will be meeting in DC next week to prepare our expression of interest. In the interest of cooperation I invite members of WG-C who have a similar program, or who consider acting as a registrar for the NAA gTLD, to contact me via email. Eric ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 22:11:41 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] nsi proposes to create new gTLds Correct on all points. Image Online Design has a registry that is ready now, and has been for over 4 years. NSI's proposal is simply their attempt to eliminate any real competition for themselves. Is it just me, or is it curious that it was written and ready to go for today's meeting? Had the names council approved 6-10, the proposal would have been rather out-of-place. But since they didn't, it fit right in. Curious. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web - ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Love" To: "Rick H Wesson" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 6:45 PM Subject: Re: [wg-c] nsi proposes to create new gTLds > > This is just a shot in the dark, but if the point is to create some > competition, why don't we have competitive proposals to compete with > NSI, rather than just have NSI run the registry that is supposed to > compete with NSI? And why should NSI choose the strings for the new > registries that compete with .com, .net and .org? > > And, why does NSI get a say on this at all? Doesn't NSI have a conflict > of interest or something? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 22:58:00 -0700 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] nsi proposes to create new gTLds On Tue, Apr 18, 2000 at 09:45:55PM -0400, James Love wrote: God here I am defending NSI... > This is just a shot in the dark, but if the point is to create some > competition, why don't we have competitive proposals to compete with > NSI, rather than just have NSI run the registry that is supposed to > compete with NSI? The proposal doesn't say that. The proposal says: "Regarding an open TLD, to introduce a proof of concept with the least delay, while still assuring sound operations and stable application of established policies, ICANN could contract with a registry that is created and operated by all willing ICANN accredited registrars on a cooperative basis." The registry is to be created and operated on a cooperative basis by "all willing ICANN accredited registrars", not by NSI. NSI unselfishly, and with only the most community minded of motives, offers to contract out support services to this registry, but that would clearly be the decision of the registry. Similarly for the chartered example (.banc), NSI is not the registry: "A key element in any such chartered TLD is coming up with the proper structures to serve as the registry and the gatekeeper. Here, we would hope that ICANN could rapidly act in concert with banking industry representatives to bring together a core group that would develop into these structures." Once again, NSI graciously offers to act as a simple contractor for support services, but the decision is still up to the sponsoring agencies, not NSI. Once again I am struck by NSI's unselfish and public spirited approach to this issue. Moreover, the whole proposal is just presented as an example of "How New Internet Top-Level Domains could be Introduced Rapidly on a Sound Basis" Note the phrase "could be Introduced" in the title. > And why should NSI choose the strings for the new > registries that compete with .com, .net and .org? They didn't choose. They made a suggestion. Just like I make suggestions. Just like you make suggestions -- why should *you* get to choose strings, anyway? > And, why does NSI get a say on this at all? Freedom of speech. Something like that, at least. Anyway, how would you propose to stop them? > Doesn't NSI have a conflict > of interest or something? Nope. Any halfwit can make suggestions. No law against it... :-) Kent - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 23:10:47 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] nsi proposes to create new gTLds >The registry is to be created and operated on a cooperative basis by >"all willing ICANN accredited registrars", not by NSI. NSI unselfishly, >and with only the most community minded of motives, offers to contract >out support services to this registry, but that would clearly be the >decision of the registry. Giving NSI a piece of the action, and remaining the only registry services operator. Very unselfish of them, indeed. I've got a better idea: decide how many new registries will be created (I thought we had consensus on 6-10, but the names council has decided that we didn't. Imagine that), and tender offers for companies to run them. NSI isn't the only company out there with functional software, or the means to develop it. If speed is an issue (and I can't imagine how it would be, as we've waited 4 years already), then IOD has a registry system operational now. Tell you what, take NSI's proposal, and replace "NSI" with "IOD" and it's just as viable. The only thing we got today was a front-row seat to watch a captured group of individuals throw away a year's worth of work. We should all be insulted and angry. And we should all be offended at NSI's willingness to step in and try to carve out yet another piece of the pie for themselves. As I've said before, what's discussed in the working group is irrelevant. The names council does what they want to do. And ICANN will now do what *they* want to do (within the constraints of the negotiations they've had behind closed doors with those who are pulling the strings of the names council). Anyone who is surprised by what happened today hasn't been paying attention. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 08:31:57 +0200 From: "Petter Rindforth" Subject: SV: [wg-c] NC Statement on new gTLDs I agree with that (from an IP point of view :-)) / Petter >Seemed like a positive statement to me. Not exactly what I would >have written, but positive. Jamie > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 17:37:17 +1200 From: Joop Teernstra Subject: Re: [wg-c] 1447PDT 4/18, DNSO NC made all our work irrelevant At 14:56 18/04/00 -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote: > >Of course, this particular NC teleconference isn't archived anywhere >and wasn't webcast, due to "budgetary considerations". And to listen in by phone is really only an option for those who live in the U.S. Thanks Mark, for reporting on it here. It's nice to know how we have been used. - --Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- the Cyberspace Association, the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners http://www.idno.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 12:28:13 -0300 From: "Tony Linares" Subject: [wg-c] Adios I will be un-subscribing from this list by the end of the day (AST). It has been enlightening. This message is from: Gilbert Anthony Linares Travel Services, Inc. PO Box 16187 San Juan, PR 00908-6187 USA Tel. (787) 724-6281 Fax (787) 725-6245 www.destinationpr.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 12:47:59 -0400 From: Milton Mueller Subject: [wg-c] Respecting the process Gentlemen: Working group C deliberated for almost 9 months and as everyone knows it was a long and fractious process. However, one item of consensus managed to emerge consistently and repeatedly, despite all the vociferous disagreements on other issues. That was the consensus item that the number of new TLDs introduced in the initial period should be between 6 and 10. The 6-10 proposal was voted on at least three times. Each time it received over 2/3 support, and that support spanned a broad range of constituencies and viewpoints. The concept was clearly a compromise and indeed was consciously constructed as the kind of middle ground that could satisfy all parties. Many of us, myself included, wanted much larger numbers in the initial round; others wanted less. Almost all of us managed to agree on this compromise. And as the comments on the public comment period showed, there was overwhelming support I am, therefore, puzzled by your vote on the Names Council yesterday. I would remind you that you were asked to vote not on whether you personally -- or your constituency -- believes that there should be 6-10 new gTLDs. You were asked to vote on whether that was an item of consensus that could be passed on to the board. All of you voted no. On what basis did you make this vote? Please explain. In crafting your explanation, please also explain why anyone should participate in DNSO working groups, if the ultimate recommendations of the NC do not reflect the agreements of the group. - --Milton Mueller ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 17:48:47 -0400 From: James Love Subject: [wg-c] Give NSI .shop and take back .com Since NSI is so taken by .shop for a new TLD, I suggest we give NSI the opportunity to be the registry for .shop, on the condition they give back the .com registry. Jamie ps... I wonder what market research led NSI to choose .shop for its competitor? ======================================================= James Love, Director | http://www.cptech.org Consumer Project on Technology | mailto:love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367 | voice: 1.202.387.8030 Washington, DC 20036 | fax: 1.202.234.5176 ======================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 00:19:36 +0200 (MET DST) From: DNSO Listadmin Subject: [wg-c] DNSO Names Council Statement on new gTLDs [ To: council@dnso.org ] [ To: ga@dnso.org, announce@dnso.org ] [ To: wg-b, wg-c, wg-d, wg-e ] [ from http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000419.NCgtlds-statement.html ] ICANN/DNSO DNSO Names Council Statement on new gTLDs 19 April 2000 DNSO Names Council Statement on new gTLDs The Names Council determines that the report of Working Group C and related comments indicate that there exists a consensus for the introduction of new gTLDs in a measured and responsible manner. The Names Council therefore recommends to the ICANN Board that it establish a policy for the introduction of new gTLDs in a measured and responsible manner, giving due regard in the implementation of that policy to (a) promoting orderly registration of names during the initial phases; (b) minimizing the use of gTLDs to carry out infringements of intellectual property rights; and (c) recognizing the need for ensuring user confidence in the technical operation of the new TLD and the DNS as a whole. Because there is no recent experience in introducing new gTLDs, we recommend to the Board that a limited number of new top-level domains be introduced initially and that the future introduction of additional top- level domains be done only after careful evaluation of the initial introduction. The Names Council takes note of the fact that the WG C report indicates that several types of domains should be considered in the initial introduction, these being: fully open top-level domains, restricted and chartered top- level domains with limited scope, non-commercial domains and personal domains. Implementation should promote competition in the domain- name registration business at the registry and registrar levels. The Names Council recognizes that any roll-out must not jeopardize the stability of the Internet, and assumes a responsible process for introducing new gTLDs, which includes ensuring that there is close coordination with organizations dealing with Internet protocols and standards. To assist the Board in the task of introducing new gTLDs, the Names Council recommends that the ICANN staff invite expressions of interest from parties seeking to operate any new gTLD registry, with an indication as to how they propose to ensure to promote these values. We would like to extend our deep appreciation to the substantial number of participants who worked so diligently in Working Groups B and C, and want to thank them for their significant efforts in evaluating the issues that were referred to them. Recognizing the Working Group C has recently approved additional principles and that Working Group B's formal report was provided to us yesterday, we advise the Board that we will be providing supplemental recommendations in the near future. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Information from: (c) DNSO Names Council ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:34:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Karl Auerbach Subject: Re: [wg-c] DNSO Names Council Statement on new gTLDs > DNSO Names Council Statement on new gTLDs > 19 April 2000 ... > Information from: (c) DNSO Names Council That last line bespeaks volumes. --karl-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 00:35:29 +0200 (MET DST) From: DNSO Listadmin Subject: [wg-c] Call for comments on WG-B formal report, ending 10 May 2000 [ To: council@dnso.org ] [ To: ga@dnso.org, announce@dnso.org ] [ To: wg-b, wg-c, wg-d, wg-e ] [ from : http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000419.NCwgb-comments.html ] ICANN/DNSO Call for comments on WG-B formal report - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 19 April 2000 In July 1999 the DNSO Names Council set up: * Working Group B -- Famous Trade-Marks * Working Group C -- New gTLDs For the last nine months these two working groups have been discussing various aspects of their assigned topics. In Cairo the ICANN Board has requested the Names Council to provide its recommendations on these topics by 20 April 2000. On 19 April 2000, the Names Council held a teleconference to discuss the issue of new generic top level domains (gTLDs) and to make a recommendation to the ICANN Board of Directors. The Names Council published a Statement on new gTLDs http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000419.NCgtlds-statement.html and noted that it had recently received additional principles for the introduction of new gTLDs and would be providing supplemental recommendations to the Board in the near future. Working Group B - Famous Trade-Marks. On 21 March 2000, WG-B submitted its Status report to the Names Council. * http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000321.NCwgb-report.html Working Group B status report to the Names Council, by Michael Palage On 17 April 2000, WG-B submitted its Formal report to the Names Council, including points of agreement and dissention, with 8 annexes. * http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000417.NCwgb-report.html Working Group B formal report to the Names Council, by Michael Palage The WG-B Formal Report is open for three weeks public comments, starting today 19 April 2000, ending 10 May 2000. All comments shall be sent to comments-wgb@dnso.org, no later than 10 May 2000. The archives for comments on Formal report are on line at: * http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-wgb/Arc00/maillist.html WG-B works The full archives of the WG-B are on line at: * http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-b/Archives/maillist.html Former public comments to Working Group B (lists closed) * http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-wipo/Arc01/maillist.html (4 April 2000 to 19 April 2000) * http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-wipo/Archives/maillist.html (July 1999 to 4 April 2000) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Information from: (c) DNSO Names Council ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 19:08:57 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] Give NSI .shop and take back .com At 05:48 PM 4/19/00 -0400, James Love wrote: >Since NSI is so taken by .shop for a new TLD, I suggest we give NSI the >opportunity to be the registry for .shop, on the condition they give >back the .com registry. James, thank you for the constructive effort. You weren't just being wastefully sarcastic were you? Unfortunately, you managed to inject vastly more emotion, on NSI's part, than their own text provided. They made some suggestions. That's all. >ps... I wonder what market research led NSI to choose .shop for its >competitor? Were you just slightly familiar with the considerable history of the gTLD activities, you would know that that particular string has received more extensive review and support than any other. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #92 *************************