From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #93 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 093 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 23:28:13 -0400 (EDT) From: James Love Subject: Re: [wg-c] Give NSI .shop and take back .com 1. Is the Working Group C approach that the registries will propose both the string and the charter, rather than have ICANN? 2. I assume that NSI wants to run the new registry in order to prevent another rival from emerging. I assume that NSI's suggestion the registry be owned by the other registrars is also consistent with making it hard for another rival to emerge. I don't think I am going out on a limb here. With its current control of the gTLD space, why wouldn't one expect NSI to try to protect its monopoly? That's what monopolies usually do. 3. Was NSI allowed to vote in the Names Council votes on the new registries? (I haven't seen the tallys). What do the ICANN bylaws provide in terms of conflicts of interest for the Names Council? Is there anyone on the Names Council who doesn't have an "intereset" in this issue, if not a "conflict" of interest? I'm not sure how ICANN deals with conflicts of interest. It seems as though it kind of rewards conflicts, by giving you more votes, board seats, etc, than people without direct commerical interests in the outcome. Jamie On Wed, 19 Apr 2000, Dave Crocker wrote: > 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 > ============================================= 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: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 20:36:38 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Give NSI .shop and take back .com >2. I assume that NSI wants to run the new registry in order to prevent >another rival from emerging. I assume that NSI's suggestion the >registry be owned by the other registrars is also consistent with making >it hard for another rival to emerge. I don't think I am going out on a >limb here. With its current control of the gTLD space, why wouldn't one >expect NSI to try to protect its monopoly? That's what monopolies >usually do. Of course. They don't want a competitor like Image Online Design to have any chance of getting its .web registry into the roots. That seem obvious from their behaviour over the past year as well as their voting record and proposal. >3. Was NSI allowed to vote in the Names Council votes on the new >registries? (I haven't seen the tallys). What do the ICANN bylaws >provide in terms of conflicts of interest for the Names Council? Is >there anyone on the Names Council who doesn't have an "intereset" in >this issue, if not a "conflict" of interest? I'm not sure how ICANN >deals with conflicts of interest. It seems as though it kind of rewards >conflicts, by giving you more votes, board seats, etc, than people >without direct commerical interests in the outcome. I couldn't agree more. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 20:46:28 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] Give NSI .shop and take back .com James, At 11:28 PM 4/19/00 -0400, James Love wrote: >1. Is the Working Group C approach that the registries will propose >both the string and the charter, rather than have ICANN? James, there is a difference between proposing and deciding. (Given your recent involvement in this activity, you might not be aware that I'm not a fan of NSI. However they do not deserve to be given FEWER rights than any other participant.) What is wrong with their making a suggestion? >2. I assume that NSI wants to run the new registry in order to prevent There is a difference between providing operations services and 'managing' the registry. What is wrong with NSI's making an offer to sub-contract for operations. (A different question is whether they would be a good choice, but that involves those making the choice, not those making the offer.) >another rival from emerging. I assume that NSI's suggestion the >registry be owned by the other registrars is also consistent with making >it hard for another rival to emerge. I don't think I am going out on a Given that a registry owned by registrars does not currently exist, what is the logic you used to conclude that this new registry, of which registrar NSI would be only one member among many, would not create competition for registry NSI? >limb here. With its current control of the gTLD space, why wouldn't one >expect NSI to try to protect its monopoly? That's what monopolies >usually do. And NSI has done that frequently and successfully. However that does not mean that every utterance from them is nefarious or counter-productive. Among the many possible explanations for their proposal is one that views it as being in there interest for competition at the registry level to be created, now that NSI has control of its own registry locked in for a number of years. After all, enough ICANN failure could lead to de-stabilizing NSI's own position. >3. Was NSI allowed to vote in the Names Council votes on the new >registries? (I haven't seen the tallys). What do the ICANN bylaws >provide in terms of conflicts of interest for the Names Council? Is A simplistic view of controlling for conflict of interest attempts to have only completely untainted voters. A realistic view of controlling for conflict of interest acknowledges that most voters are tainted, and then tries to balance representations so that the different taintings negate each other. As a lousy TV show once noted, idealism is fine, but try spreading it on crackers. If anyone is serious about getting work done here, they need to use models of the real world, not the ideal one. d/ p.s. The other point to consider is that it is always trivial to attack the proposer, and much, much more difficult to analyze the proposition. =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 20:52:46 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Give NSI .shop and take back .com - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 20-Apr-2000 James Love wrote: > 3. Was NSI allowed to vote in the Names Council votes on the new > registries? (I haven't seen the tallys). What do the ICANN bylaws > provide in terms of conflicts of interest for the Names Council? Is > there anyone on the Names Council who doesn't have an "intereset" in > this issue, if not a "conflict" of interest? I'm not sure how ICANN > deals with conflicts of interest. It seems as though it kind of rewards > conflicts, by giving you more votes, board seats, etc, than people > without direct commerical interests in the outcome. Very astute observation, James. However, I will note that to some extent we ALL have an interest in the issue, and probably a conflict of one sort of another. But the DNSO Names Council is representative only of a very small subset of those who have an interest and a stake in this process, and they go out of their way to minimalize and dismiss the rest of us so they can justify going their own way, unless what they want happens to agree with us, then they hold it up as a shining example of consensus in action. - - -- 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/n8N8zLmV94Pz+IRAoLuAJ9I3O3pnSCRbZphpwOe0zx3SGV4CgCgyGNe MaJKmdcybYwFN+1U0TttqmY= =3+Hn - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 23:12:05 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: [wg-c] Give NSI .shop and take back .com At 07:08 PM 4/19/00 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: >At 05:48 PM 4/19/00 -0400, James Love wrote: >>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. Would you be so kind as to provide the documentation (URLs are fine) to back your claim. I've never seen, nor heard, of any published data which independently reviews, or analyzes the projected consequences, of inserting this particular gTLD into the root. I'm sure the rest of WG-C/DNSO would like to evaluate this claim as well. Thanks, Best Regards, Simon - -- "Disraeli was pretty close: actually, there are Lies, Damn lies, Statistics, Benchmarks, and Delivery dates." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 23:18:16 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Give NSI .shop and take back .com Crocker Said: >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. In addition to agreeing with Simon that I'd like to see the research, I'd also like to dispute the claim. I would venture that .web has surely received more support than .shop. As for review, I'd have to see your documentation in order to assess the claim. Please, do document your claim. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 10:12:56 +0200 From: "Philip Sheppard" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Respecting the process Milton, Rather too much is being made of this vote. It was not intended to be a formal vote on constituency lines. Such a vote would need to be referred back to constituencies anyway. It was a suggestion by Erica Roberts that it may provide some guidance for the feelings of the NC on the two key items in order to agree upon wording for an NC statement. It was a straw poll. That the votes of the straw poll have been tallied and published is fine in the name of transparency and great fodder for those who relish in conspiracy! The questions put to the NC were: 1. Did the Names Council believe (it was the) (READ there was) consensus on the opening of new gTLDs ? 2. Did the Names Council believe (it was the) (READ there was) consensus that the initial number for roll out should be 6 to 10 new gTLDs ? Question 2 was not "Do you believe there is a consensus within WG C on this issue" - that would be a daft question as the answer is in black and white already in the way WG C defined consensus. But more the question was "Do you believe there is a global consensus on this point?" I know of those opposed to the idea and so could only vote no. Philip ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 06:12:42 -0400 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] Give NSI .shop and take back .com While it is a fact that Mr. Love's participation in the "DNS Wars" is of very recent date, and consequently, though not necessarily, has a view untroubled by some rather salient details, it is a surprise that both of Chris and Simon play dumb. What "the rest of WG-C/DNSO would like to evaluate" is small beans, there being no basis for compromise on basics, and chuckleheads playing taunt and tag rather than the more difficult game of forward progress isn't an interesting alternative. I haven't forgotten the IHAC period of this long process, in fact I view it with vastly increassed fondness -- particularly the caliber of the work that when on then. If Mr. Love and others new to the problem don't need to understand that there is prior work, fine. If people who know better lie about the issue I suppose that is par for the course as well. Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 09:26:39 -0400 From: James Love Subject: [wg-c] Dot Com monopoly and new TLDs I'm not sure what the point of Mr. Brunner's somewhat cryptic message (below) is, but I do confess to not being an old hand at the "DNS Wars." With respect to the issue of .shop as NSI's suggested name for a new unrestricted gTLD, I asked what market research NSI might have done to have supported this particular string. This was a serious question. I am aware the .shop has been around for a while, and indeed is popular among some veterans of the "DNS Wars." However, I am aware the "market research" often involves more than listening to a bunch of sofware engineers think about what makes sense. My guess is that if a bunch of *investors* won a bid to create the unrestricted gTLD of their choice, .shop would not be the string of choice. NSI gets $6 per year as a registry for each domain registered in .com, plus lots for registrar services. I expect NSI to want to protect this income stream as much as possible, but hey, that's just based upon my assumptions about they way businesses (this business) operate(s). Maybe there is something that I have overlooked. If the NSI proposal for 2 new TLDs was truly intended as a "proof of concept," and not a delaying tactic, it would be somewhat interesting, but even then, not very impressive. What would it "prove?" We already have ccTLDs marketing themselves as gTLDs -- lots of them. .cc, .fm, .am., .md, .tv, .tm, .to., .nu etc, are proof that groups other than NSI can set up and run a registry service. I assume people have noticed this already. What would be interesting would be to see what ideas will come forth once the door is open to new ideas. A test bed of 10 would at least provide for some biodiversity. A testbed of 100 would be better. Since 6 to 10 is out, how about a testbed of 100 new TLDs for each region? Does ICANN really want to be known as the gatekeeper and protector or narrow corporate interests? Jamie Eric Brunner wrote: > > While it is a fact that Mr. Love's participation in the "DNS Wars" is of > very recent date, and consequently, though not necessarily, has a view > untroubled by some rather salient details, it is a surprise that both of > Chris and Simon play dumb. > > What "the rest of WG-C/DNSO would like to evaluate" is small beans, there > being no basis for compromise on basics, and chuckleheads playing taunt > and tag rather than the more difficult game of forward progress isn't an > interesting alternative. I haven't forgotten the IHAC period of this long > process, in fact I view it with vastly increassed fondness -- particularly > the caliber of the work that when on then. > > If Mr. Love and others new to the problem don't need to understand that > there is prior work, fine. If people who know better lie about the issue > I suppose that is par for the course as well. > > Cheers, > Eric - -- ======================================================= 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 09:43:41 -0400 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs At 03:35 PM 4/18/00 -0400, John Charles Broomfield wrote: >To the chair: > Have we reached consensus as William states it? Ie consensus on >running gTLDs (as in generic, not as in chartered) in different ways? If >so, could I have the wording and the date when we (WG-C) reached this >agreement? > AFAIK it is still being discussed. > Also, AFAIK, a large amount of the members of this workgroup would >not settle for a gTLD to be run in any other way except shared, which is why >I find strange that William affirms this. >[snip] We did a straw poll last August addressing some of these these issues. The WG was smaller then, and only 25 people participated. (In the poll, I used "gTLD" to include any top-level domain other than a ccTLD -- both TLDs that have a charter limiting registrations and those that don't.) On the issue of whether gTLDs should be for-profit or non-profit, eleven people voted that *all* registries should be run on a not-for-profit, cost-recovery basis. Fourteen people voted that *some* registries should be run on a not-for-profit, cost-recovery basis, and that others could be run on a for-profit basis. We had a lot of discussion on the issue subsequently, and it was addressed in most of the position papers, but we never reached a consensus position. On the issue of sharing, twelve people voted for "option one": that all gTLDs must be shared (that is, open to competitive registrars). Eight voted for "option two": that ICANN should presumptively require that gTLDs be shared, but allow exceptions in particular cases. Five voted for "option three": that ICANN should not require registries to support competitive registrars in any of their TLDs, although registries might independently choose to do so. In my own summary, I wrote at the time: "These results seem to me striking. On the one hand, 80% of those participating voted for options one or two -- that is, that ICANN should impose *some* sharing requirement. On the other hand, a majority of those voting indicated that there should be room for non-shared TLDs as well. This suggests to me that the WG may well be able to find rough consensus around option two as a compromise position (or, at the very least, that *if* the WG is able to find rough consensus, it will be around option two). . . . [T]he numbers suggest a route to a resolution — it seems likely that option two can provide a workable compromise, consensus, position." In fact, though, we didn't seize the opportunity to forge consensus on this issue at the time. Jon ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 08:13:51 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] Respecting the process At 10:12 AM 4/20/00 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote: >this point?" I know of those opposed to the idea and so could only vote no. "consensus" means "general agreement", not "unanimous agreement". To underscore this point, the IETF uses the term "rough consensus". For any interesting topic, there will always be some dissent. Hence, the criterion you cited guarantees that you will always vote no. That's not very helpful, if there is any interest in making progress. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 16:32:40 +0100 From: "Penman, Ian" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Respecting the process Philip, For your information, I have spoken with a great number of directors of companies that are involved with e-commerce, and can safely say that not one has remarked that they are anything than entirely in favour of an increase in gTLD's. I can, however, report that a great number are perplexed as to why it seems to be taking so long before they are released. That said, I'm sure that it is possible to find one or two who don't like change (although I remain unconvinced that their motives for staying with just .com are anything less than protectionist), however I don't believe that this is any reason to deny the existence of a "consensus". Regards Ian Penman mailto:ian.penman@dla.com - -----Original Message----- From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be] Sent: 20 April 2000 09:13 To: Milton Mueller; kstubbs@digitel.net; rogerc@netsol.com; sastre@anwalt.de; wgc; Andrew McLaughlin Subject: Re: [wg-c] Respecting the process Milton, Rather too much is being made of this vote. It was not intended to be a formal vote on constituency lines. Such a vote would need to be referred back to constituencies anyway. It was a suggestion by Erica Roberts that it may provide some guidance for the feelings of the NC on the two key items in order to agree upon wording for an NC statement. It was a straw poll. That the votes of the straw poll have been tallied and published is fine in the name of transparency and great fodder for those who relish in conspiracy! The questions put to the NC were: 1. Did the Names Council believe (it was the) (READ there was) consensus on the opening of new gTLDs ? 2. Did the Names Council believe (it was the) (READ there was) consensus that the initial number for roll out should be 6 to 10 new gTLDs ? Question 2 was not "Do you believe there is a consensus within WG C on this issue" - that would be a daft question as the answer is in black and white already in the way WG C defined consensus. But more the question was "Do you believe there is a global consensus on this point?" I know of those opposed to the idea and so could only vote no. Philip ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 08:36:50 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Subject: [wg-c] Re: Dot Com monopoly and new TLDs At 09:26 AM 4/20/00 -0400, James Love wrote: >(below) is, but I do confess to not being an old hand at the "DNS Wars." Shall every appearance of a new enthusiast to theis topic force a re-start of the clock and a re-visiting of every aspect of every issue? In effect, that is what you appear to be seeking. And before you disagree, think very hard about the extent of history, the pragmatics of making progress in an open forum like this, and the nature of the challenges you are tending to offer. >am aware the .shop has been around for a while, and indeed is popular >among some veterans of the "DNS Wars." However, I am aware the "market >research" often involves more than listening to a bunch of sofware Your ready dismissal of the processes that were used (because there was more than one, though I suspect you are not aware of that) makes clear that a) you really do not know who participated in the previous assessments, b) you do not have much familiarity with real-world constraints in making these sorts of decisions. Market research can be very helpful. It comes in many forms. The sort of thing you appear to be asking for is extremely expensive and takes quite a bit of time. Worse, before it can be conducted, there needs to be considerable refinement of goals, ultimately showing that a single name won't be testing much about names. (It WILL show a great deal about administrative and operations processes.) >NSI gets $6 per year as a registry for each domain registered in .com, >plus lots for registrar services. I expect NSI to want to protect this >income stream as much as possible, but hey, that's just based upon my >assumptions about they way businesses (this business) operate(s). Maybe >there is something that I have overlooked. You probably prefer to eat adequately. You probably are careful to ensure that you do. That does not mean that every utterance out of your mouth has the goal of satisfying the food requirement. I'll bet that many statements you make actually have nothing at all to do with that goal. Really, James, discussions in this sort of forum requires a broader and less rigid model of the world. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 08:54:18 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: [wg-c] Dot Com monopoly and new TLDs At 09:26 AM 4/20/00 -0400, James Love wrote: I'm an old hand, which loses me more points everyday, apparently. The bottom line is that there is no published market research, no published impact study, no publication of any kind that you can be pointed to. Of course, I'll point you to Dave's imagination and Eric's fond memories. But, unfortunately, it still doesn't answer your question. >I'm not sure what the point of Mr. Brunner's somewhat cryptic message >(below) is, but I do confess to not being an old hand at the "DNS Wars." > >With respect to the issue of .shop as NSI's suggested name for a new >unrestricted gTLD, I asked what market research NSI might have done to >have supported this particular string. This was a serious question. I >am aware the .shop has been around for a while, and indeed is popular >among some veterans of the "DNS Wars." However, I am aware the "market >research" often involves more than listening to a bunch of sofware >engineers think about what makes sense. My guess is that if a bunch of >*investors* won a bid to create the unrestricted gTLD of their choice, >.shop would not be the string of choice. > >NSI gets $6 per year as a registry for each domain registered in .com, >plus lots for registrar services. I expect NSI to want to protect this >income stream as much as possible, but hey, that's just based upon my >assumptions about they way businesses (this business) operate(s). Maybe >there is something that I have overlooked. > >If the NSI proposal for 2 new TLDs was truly intended as a "proof of >concept," and not a delaying tactic, it would be somewhat interesting, >but even then, not very impressive. What would it "prove?" A lot to their investors. Maybe an increase in dividend yield? >We already have ccTLDs marketing themselves as gTLDs -- lots of them. >.cc, .fm, .am., .md, .tv, .tm, .to., .nu etc, are proof that groups >other than NSI can set up and run a registry service. I assume people >have noticed this already. > >What would be interesting would be to see what ideas will come forth >once the door is open to new ideas. A test bed of 10 would at least >provide for some biodiversity. A testbed of 100 would be better. Since >6 to 10 is out, how about a testbed of 100 new TLDs for each region? >Does ICANN really want to be known as the gatekeeper and protector or >narrow corporate interests? > > Jamie > > >Eric Brunner wrote: > > > > While it is a fact that Mr. Love's participation in the "DNS Wars" is of > > very recent date, and consequently, though not necessarily, has a view > > untroubled by some rather salient details, it is a surprise that both of > > Chris and Simon play dumb. > > > > What "the rest of WG-C/DNSO would like to evaluate" is small beans, there > > being no basis for compromise on basics, and chuckleheads playing taunt > > and tag rather than the more difficult game of forward progress isn't an > > interesting alternative. I haven't forgotten the IHAC period of this long > > process, in fact I view it with vastly increassed fondness -- particularly > > the caliber of the work that when on then. > > > > If Mr. Love and others new to the problem don't need to understand that > > there is prior work, fine. If people who know better lie about the issue > > I suppose that is par for the course as well. > > > > Cheers, > > Eric > >-- >======================================================= >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 09:19:24 -0700 (PDT) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Re: Dot Com monopoly and new TLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 20-Apr-2000 Dave Crocker wrote: > At 09:26 AM 4/20/00 -0400, James Love wrote: >>(below) is, but I do confess to not being an old hand at the "DNS Wars." > > Shall every appearance of a new enthusiast to theis topic force a re-start > of the clock and a re-visiting of every aspect of every issue? > > In effect, that is what you appear to be seeking. And before you disagree, > think very hard about the extent of history, the pragmatics of making > progress in an open forum like this, and the nature of the challenges you > are tending to offer. Forgive Dave, James. He mistakenly believes that any issue that was already addressed by his little IAHC process is no longer open for discussion, and has already been decided to be "consensus." And anyone not from the IAHC or supporting the IAHC process is not "worthy." - - -- 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/y4M8zLmV94Pz+IRAh8yAJ9ogJXRKzZa4a0MHidHZ5CDdHOe6QCg9Akm 9oVleOozaLCICsvdlnFWzRc= =Z7kP - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Apr 100 12:44:17 -0400 (AST) From: John Charles Broomfield Subject: Re: [wg-c] Pre-sold TLDs Hi Jon, Thanks for your detailed explanation. In short, we did NOT reach consensus on this issue. Just for the record. Yours, John Broomfield. > At 03:35 PM 4/18/00 -0400, John Charles Broomfield wrote: > >To the chair: > > Have we reached consensus as William states it? Ie consensus on > >running gTLDs (as in generic, not as in chartered) in different ways? If > >so, could I have the wording and the date when we (WG-C) reached this > >agreement? > > AFAIK it is still being discussed. > > Also, AFAIK, a large amount of the members of this workgroup would > >not settle for a gTLD to be run in any other way except shared, which is= > why > >I find strange that William affirms this. > >[snip] > > We did a straw poll last August addressing some of these these issues. > The WG was smaller then, and only 25 people participated. (In the poll, I > used "gTLD" to include any top-level domain other than a ccTLD -- both TLDs > that have a charter limiting registrations and those that don't.) > > On the issue of whether gTLDs should be for-profit or non-profit, eleven > people voted that *all* registries should be run on a not-for-profit, > cost-recovery basis. Fourteen people voted that *some* registries should > be run on a not-for-profit, cost-recovery basis, and that others could be > run on a for-profit basis. We had a lot of discussion on the issue > subsequently, and it was addressed in most of the position papers, but we > never reached a consensus position. > > On the issue of sharing, twelve people voted for "option one": that all > gTLDs must be shared (that is, open to competitive registrars). Eight > voted for "option two": that ICANN should presumptively require that gTLDs > be shared, but allow exceptions in particular cases. Five voted for > "option three": that ICANN should not require registries to support > competitive registrars in any of their TLDs, although registries might > independently choose to do so. In my own summary, I wrote at the time: > "These results seem to me striking. On the one hand, 80% of those > participating voted for options one or two -- that is, that ICANN should > impose *some* sharing requirement. On the other hand, a majority of those > voting indicated that there should be room for non-shared TLDs as well. > This suggests to me that the WG may well be able to find rough consensus > around option two as a compromise position (or, at the very least, that > *if* the WG is able to find rough consensus, it will be around option two). > . . . [T]he numbers suggest a route to a resolution =97 it seems likely tha= > t > option two can provide a workable compromise, consensus, position." In > fact, though, we didn't seize the opportunity to forge consensus on this > issue at the time. > > Jon > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 13:11:36 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: Re: [wg-c] Respecting the process At 08:13 AM 4/20/00 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: I'd like to add my vote of rough consensus to what Dave just said. Strange thing to do, but I'd better qualify it before I do it again. From my personal viewpoint, I don't believe it is possible to obtain strong enough consensus on issue number 2 (6-10 new gTLDs) due to the various interests involved. The problem is that every interested party will quote a different number of new TLDs to address their particular agenda. Trademark community says none, and so do NSI (but twist their arm and they'll put two new gTLDs in for everyone). Some of the academics say the number is unimportant, while others say we need lots of new TLDs. Etc. The test-bed, while a good idea in theory, is in reality, based on the fear of the unknown. It is an artificial limitation which is being effectively used by those with an agenda to stop or limit the number of new gTLDs. It is a glimmer of hope for the rest, but not much else. At the end of the day, the internet community should be allowed to determine this number for themselves (a true measure of community consensus) by the number of actual qualifying applications for new gTLDs. Let me use the only documentable statistics we have to illustrate this. The IANA list contains 244 requests over a fifteen month period for 163 new gTLDs from 66 applicants. Of these applications, the following statistics can be used to determine consensus/popularity of various TLD requests (I used the top 10% of requests to find the 13 most popular TLDs - the percentage is derived from the number of requests for a specific TLD divided by the total number of requests): 2.87% (7/244) .INC 2.46% (6/244) .WWW, .XXX 2.05% (5/244) .BIZ, .SEX, .WEB 1.64% (4/244) .ALT, .ART, .FAM, LAW, .MED, .PER, .USA For those wondering where .SHOP comes in all this, the original request was filed by Jeff Weisberg on 19 Sep 1995, and was the only request (0.041%) for that particular iTLD (I hope NSI have paid Jeff well). This data also supports Chris Ambler's claim that .WEB has received more support than .SHOP. Of course, we'd all be interested in any data showing otherwise, should it exist. If anyone wants to check the data for themselves, the IANA list is here: http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-discuss/mail-archive/00990.html The point I'd really like to make is that, the total number of qualifiable applicants isn't going to be all that high. Out of the 66 applicants back then, there probably aren't more than 20 that would actually qualify. Even if you multiply this number by 5 (for each year since), it is still much less than the number of ICANN registrars (when you include all the OpenSRS and CORE registrars). If the ICANN registrars can organize themselves in those kind of numbers, there is no reason why new registries can't either (the proof is in the large number of ccTLD registries). If a sensible set of criteria is used to evaluate each new TLD application, you will find that they will organize themselves into orderly fashion for inclusion into the root, and the need for an artificial test-bed becomes irrelevant. >At 10:12 AM 4/20/00 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote: >>this point?" I know of those opposed to the idea and so could only vote no. > >"consensus" means "general agreement", not "unanimous agreement". To >underscore this point, the IETF uses the term "rough consensus". > >For any interesting topic, there will always be some dissent. Hence, the >criterion you cited guarantees that you will always vote no. > >That's not very helpful, if there is any interest in making progress. > >d/ > > >=-=-=-=-= >Dave Crocker >Brandenburg Consulting >Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 >675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 16:43:52 -0400 From: Milton Mueller Subject: Re: [wg-c] Respecting the process Phil et al: > -----Original Message----- > From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be] > > Rather too much is being made of this vote. It was not intended to be a > formal vote on constituency lines. I am afraid you are mistaken. Rather too little is being made of this vote. The NC majority blatantly disregarded a well-crafted and durable consensus item because they didn't agree with it. In other words, they refused to accept the product of an open, transparent working group constructed according to ICANN's own rules. This has extremely significant implications for ICANN's DNSO future. Worse -- much worse -- the incumbent monopolist in the gTLD registry business floated a proposal for two new commercial TLDs, both of which would be co-owned and/or operated by itself. That proposal, which was never placed before *any* working group, and never debated and discussed by anyone outside of NSI, and certainly never submitted for public comment, now sits on the *front page* of the DNSO web site, in a position that is more prominent than the official report of your own working group C. Who made the decision to post that? Why? What gives Roger Cochetti, a spokesman for the incumbent monopolist, the right to a privileged platform to promote unreviewed and self-serving gTLD proposals? Anyone can come up with proposals for new gTLDs. Several have already been put before the WG. Why weren't they listed on the front page of the DNSO web site?Given this abuse of procedure, I find your response to be disingenuous. - --MM ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 14:16:35 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) From: Karl Auerbach Subject: Re: [wg-c] Respecting the process > 2. Did the Names Council believe (it was the) (READ there was) consensus > that the initial number for roll out should be 6 to 10 new gTLDs ? > > Question 2 was not "Do you believe there is a consensus within WG C on this > issue" - that would be a daft question as the answer is in black and white > already in the way WG C defined consensus. One must of course wonder where the Names Council found this silent voice of consensus or non-consensus that was not participating in the working group on the topic at hand. I submit that what the NC has done is engage in the highest degree of hubris. --karl-- ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #93 *************************