From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #94 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Saturday, April 22 2000 Volume 01 : Number 094 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 14:47:23 -0700 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] Respecting the process On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 04:43:52PM -0400, Milton Mueller wrote: > 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. Yes, I hope so. Perhaps finally the realities of the WG process will sink in. There is a *very* widespread delusion that WGs are representative decision making bodies. They are not, they have never been intended as such, and the bylaws do not confer any such meaning. Far more important, as a matter of simple principle, self-selected groups such as DNSO WGs can *never* be considered as representative bodies, and it would be irresponsible to consider them as such. When Kurt Godel published the incompleteness theorem it invalidated an entire generations grand program for the development of mathematics, and many of the mathematicians of the time were lost and adrift without that program. But some found the destruction of the old erroneous ways a path to a new paradigm. That is, the old paradigm of monolothic WGs that are chartered to deal with enormous policy questions has been, in my mind, demonstrated a complete failure. It is a failure in terms of its results, it is a failure in terms of its effectiveness. We need a new paradigm. In my opinion the notion that WGs must be representative has been at the root of the problem. That is a horrible, fundamental mistake. Forget it. WGs should *not* be considered as representative; they should be considered as what they really are: a group of people with a definite vested interest in the outcome. If WGs are considered in that light, and are chartered with that expectation, then the whole game changes. Instead of you trying to sway the world with your libertarian balderdash, you can get together with your friends in a WG and produce position papers that are your best efforts. You don't have to waste your time arguing with me. And I and my friends could go off and produce OUR best efforts, without wasting our time arguing every nitpicking little detail with you. The politics would still remain in full force, of course -- nothing could change that. But it would be moved to a different level, and at least the quality of the output the WGs would be improved, and the debate would be over well-developed, complete positions, instead of mind-numbing rehashes of ancient history. [...] > 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? About this issue, I agree with you. I fully support Mr Cochetti and NSI's right to make proposals, and there is much that I like in the NSI proposal. But you are correct -- the placement on the web page does give it an undeserved prominence. I think it is a good idea to post proposals like that, and I think there should be a place on the DNSO web site for them, but the current situation is clearly not the way it should be. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 00:08:16 +0200 (MET DST) From: Elisabeth Porteneuve Subject: Re: [wg-c] Respecting the process Kent, Milton et al, You are correct, it is not appropriate to keep the NSI proposal on the dnso.org main page, and it has been removed by now. I appologize for my mistake. It is recorded in the council list archives, like any other Contituencies proposals. Elisabeth Porteneuve > > [...] > > > 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? > > About this issue, I agree with you. I fully support Mr Cochetti and > NSI's right to make proposals, and there is much that I like in the NSI > proposal. But you are correct -- the placement on the web page does > give it an undeserved prominence. I think it is a good idea to post > proposals like that, and I think there should be a place on the DNSO web > site for them, but the current situation is clearly not the way it > should be. > > > -- > Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be > kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 19:03:32 -0400 From: Milton Mueller Subject: Re: [wg-c] Respecting the process It is, I think, hypocritical to blame WG-C for being noisy and divided when the issue it was handed has been noisily dividing the Internet world for five years. The WG threw all the fractious forces into a stew and forced them to deal with each other directly. To those of us interested in actually building consensus and moving forward, that was a healthy, if difficult, aspect of the DNSO process. Kent Crispin wrote: > DNSO WGs can *never* be considered as representative > bodies, and it would be irresponsible to consider them as such. As mechanisms for finding out what the broad Internet public can agree upon (or cannot agree upon) the WGs are far more "representative" than any other process at ICANN's disposal. This is true precisely because they are open to anyone interested enough to deal with the traffic and the noise and the issues. Of course they are composed of those members of the Internet industry and user groups who are most interested in the outcome of a particular issue. If any interested party thinks it is unbalanced, they can join. The composition is self-correcting. That fact does not discredit but in fact strengthens whatever consensus findings the WG can come up with. If 50 active participants can agree and those 50 include the likes of Dave Crocker, Milton Mueller, Kilnom Chon, Eric Brunner, Chris Ambler, and Ross Rader, all long-time participants in the new TLDs debate and all representative of *very* divergent viewpoints, then such agreement is important. It is not something to be cast aside simply because a small plurality thinks they have the votes on the NC. I am disturbed at your suggestion that ICANN's processes and outcomes should be insulated even more from the participation and influence of active members of the Internet public. The Names Council and its artificial and unbalanced structure prefilters positions into specific interest groups. Its processes foster insider deals, not discussion and consensus building. Minorities just get outvoted rather than persuaded. An NC vote tells you who has power and who's paying off whom. It does not identify areas of agreement and compromise. NC was never meant to be a policy making body, it was intended to be a "manager of the consensus-building process." Read the DNSO charter. > That is, the old paradigm of monolothic WGs that are chartered to deal > with enormous policy questions has been, in my mind, demonstrated a True, WG-C was given an issue (new TLDs) that was too big and too complex. But under the leadership of Weinberg it responded to that problem in the proper manner: After thrashing about it determined that no consensus was possible on many of the issues. That fact reinforces once again the significance of the areas in which it did find rough consensus. 6-10 was one of them. I would like to know, on what basis do the NC representatives purport to know which positions command widespread assent? In fact, the question insults our intelligence. We all know what is going on. When Marilyn Cade or Roger Cochetti question the representativeness of a WG-C consensus item, it is simply because the WG came up with a result they didn't like. > Instead of you trying to sway the world with your libertarian > balderdash, you can get together with your friends in a WG and produce > position papers that are your best efforts. You don't have to waste > your time arguing with me. That sounds heavenly. Seriously, the sub-delegation of the development of position papers to cohesive groups is an idea of some merit. We can use it in the future. That has no bearing on how we handle the recommendations of this WG. Also, as is usually the case with your suggestions, it comes in a poisonous wrapper: should all position paper proposals have equal status, and the NC picks whatever positions it feels like picking? No thanks. There's got to be more bottom up to DNSO than that. Such an approach does nothing to ensure that the representatives of various positions are incorporated into a broadly acceptable or workable policy. - --MM ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Apr 100 18:08:00 -0400 (AST) From: John Charles Broomfield 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. Hi Chris, I'll agree with you that ".web" as a generic sounds to me much betterr (more generic?) than ".shop". I'll agree that a lot of people would prefer ".web" to ".shop" if only merits are the combination of letters. Problem with ".web" is this nasty habit of a certain company called IOD to keep affirming it owns the thing. Unfortunately that will *probably* stop it from being used in the legacy roots at all. Yours, John Broomfield. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 16:20:53 -0700 From: "Bret A. Fausett" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Respecting the process On these WG process issues, I would invite all the members of WG-C to share any insights gained here with WG-D. I've staged links to a recent draft of proposed policies and procedures for WGs at http://www.lextext.com/wgd/ . Thoughts welcome. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 16:27:56 -0700 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Respecting the process Damn! Milton has hit it SPOT ON. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 17:04:32 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] Give NSI .shop and take back .com At 06:08 PM 4/20/00 -0400, John Charles Broomfield wrote: > I'll agree with you that ".web" as a generic sounds to me much >betterr (more generic?) than ".shop". I'll agree that a lot of people would My note did not state that .shop was superior. It said that it had been more substantially reviewed. That does not pertain to the question of how loudly or how long one or another person touts the string. It has to do with the nature of a discussion that considers the merits of the string, and with the breadth of participation in that discussion. The IAHC, itself, almost included it initially. Hence it was rather carefully considered by that body of 12 people with quite diverse backgrounds. Then, the public review if the IAHC list resulted in very, very strong feedback indicating that .shop was superior to .store and should be included. Again, a pretty broad range of people participated in that open and public discussion. Yes .web was also in that published list and, therefore, also considered. However by virtue of being part of a controversy about adequacy of the initial list, .shop received much more focused discussion than any other candidate string. 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 18:04:58 -0700 From: "Mark C. Langston" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Respecting the process On Thu, Apr 20, 2000 at 07:03:32PM -0400, Milton Mueller wrote: [...snip much good writing...] I agree completely with what Mr. Mueller wrote here. The fact that 6-10 was agreed upon _at all_ is significant. The cacophony found in the DNSO WGs lend more, not less, credence to the consensus items. For the NC as a whole, or as individuals, to claim that they are more in touch with "the internet community" -- to more accurately gauge consensus than the efforts put forth by this diverse group -- is an insult, and one must wonder at the motives behind it. While I long for the possibility of true 'rough consensus' as found in the IETF process, where all involved are working on technical matters and towards more or less the same goal, it simply won't happen here. These fora are too factious, too politically charged, and too financially motivated to lend themselves to that kind of effort. In light of this, the voting system, while imperfect and disliked by some, is the best way we have to account for consensus. I don't want to get into another battle over what means of determining consensus is optimum; but I would like to point out that we at least have attempted to employ _some_ form of determining consensus. The NC has simply manifested (a lack of) consensus from nothingness, and have nothing but claims that "they know people who don't like the position" as support for claiming (a lack of) consensus. Once more, if this is how the NC wants to do business, I strongly recommend they stop wasting time and energy and disband the working groups. Come up with what THEY believe consensus to be, and then solicit public feedback, and store that feedback in a publically-accessible archive. If they _still_ wish to claim (a lack of) consensus, there will be a direct record disproving such a claim. But then, the archives of this group disprove the claim that there's no consensus on 6-10, and nothing's being done to correct this situation. - -- Mark C. Langston mark@bitshift.org Systems & Network Admin San Jose, CA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 23:57:14 -0400 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] Tuesday's NC meeting Here is a brief summary of the portions of the Names Council meeting on Tuesday most relevant to WG-C. The NC began by taking two straw polls. In the first, the NC supported the establishment of new gTLDs. (Vote tally: YES: Poblete, Sheppard, Katoh, Swinehart, Cochetti, Hotta, Park, Kleiman, Stubbs, Roberts, Kane, Chicoine, Carey. ABSTAIN: Harris, Schneider, Aus der Muhlen. NOT PRESENT: Jennings, Amar.) In the second, the NC declined to support an initial rollout of 6-10 new gTLDs followed by an evaluation period. (Vote tally: YES: Hotta, Park, Kleiman, Roberts, Carey. NO: Sheppard, Swinehart, Cochetti, Harris, Schneider, Stubbs, Kane, Aus der Muhlen. ABSTAIN: Poblete, Katoh. NOT PRESENT: Jennings, Amar.) Most of the NO voters explained that in their view there was not consensus within the Internet community supporting 6-10. They emphasized (Roger Cochetti made this point repeatedly) that the existence of rough consensus within WG-C, however measured, did not necessarily establish consensus within the Internet community as a whole. The NC approved a resolution recommending "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." Rather than endorsing any specific number of new gTLDs in that initial rollout, the NC's resolution simply recommended "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." The NC noted 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." Within that framework, it continued: "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." (An earlier version of this last bit had read "The Names Council recognizes that the WG C report indicates . . ." The word "recognizes" was changed to "takes note of " at the request of Phillip Shepard, who was concerned that "recognizes" might imply endorsement.) Philip Sheppard urged that the resolution drafted by the NC explicitly endorse the S/K principles. Nobody else was enthusiastic about discussing the principles at Tuesday's meeting. Rather, the NC added this language to its resolution: "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." The last paragraph of the NC resolution states: "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." (An earlier version had included the sentence: "We urge those participants to continue to contribute their expertise in these issues as these matters move on to consideration by the Board and implementation." This was deleted at the suggestion of Philip Sheppard, who pointed out that in his view WG-C had completed its work. Other NC members agreed that the NC shouldn't affirmatively encourage us to keep going.) In fact, I figure on sending a note to the NC tomorrow recommending that this WG be disbanded, for three reasons: [1] We've run out of time. Under the Board's resolution in Cairo, now that the NC has voted, it's the job of ICANN staff to draw up "draft policies, draft implementation documents, commentary, and statements of issues" on the introduction of new gTLDs so that the Board can take action in Yokohama. Louis Touton has advised the NC that it needs to complete its recommendations within a month if ICANN staff are to be able to take them fully into account. That's simply not enough time for us to reach further consensus recommendations and the NC to request public comment on those points and vote them up or down. [2] If we were to do more work, I'm not sure on what basis we'd proceed. The WG reached a consensus in favor of 6-10; the NC has rejected it. That's their prerogative, but how would we proceed from here? [3] We're all tired. (I know I am.) I frankly don't think we'd get a lot more done in any event. It's time for different bodies to move these issues forward. Jon ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 10:32:03 +0200 From: "Philip Sheppard" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Respecting the process I agree with Milton that the NSI paper should not be on the DNSO site and I will ask for it to be removed. Philip. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 07:02:04 -0700 From: Josh Elliott Subject: RE: [wg-c] Tuesday's NC meeting Jon, I personally would like to thank you for all of your hard work in moving this WG along as best you could. You did a great job, and I hope we can continue to work together in the future. Thanks. Josh > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of > Jonathan Weinberg > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 8:57 PM > To: wg-c@dnso.org > Subject: [wg-c] Tuesday's NC meeting > > > Here is a brief summary of the portions of the Names > Council meeting on > Tuesday most relevant to WG-C. The NC began by taking two straw > polls. In > the first, the NC supported the establishment of new gTLDs. (Vote tally: > YES: Poblete, Sheppard, Katoh, Swinehart, Cochetti, Hotta, Park, Kleiman, > Stubbs, Roberts, Kane, Chicoine, Carey. ABSTAIN: Harris, Schneider, Aus > der Muhlen. NOT PRESENT: Jennings, Amar.) > > In the second, the NC declined to support an initial > rollout of 6-10 new > gTLDs followed by an evaluation period. (Vote tally: YES: Hotta, Park, > Kleiman, Roberts, Carey. NO: Sheppard, Swinehart, Cochetti, Harris, > Schneider, Stubbs, Kane, Aus der Muhlen. ABSTAIN: Poblete, Katoh. NOT > PRESENT: Jennings, Amar.) Most of the NO voters explained that in their > view there was not consensus within the Internet community > supporting 6-10. > They emphasized (Roger Cochetti made this point repeatedly) that the > existence of rough consensus within WG-C, however measured, did not > necessarily establish consensus within the Internet community as a whole. > > The NC approved a resolution recommending "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." Rather than endorsing any specific number of > new gTLDs in that initial rollout, the NC's resolution simply recommended > "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." The NC noted 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." Within that framework, it continued: > "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." (An earlier version of > this last bit had read "The Names Council recognizes that the WG C report > indicates . . ." The word "recognizes" was changed to "takes note of " at > the request of Phillip Shepard, who was concerned that "recognizes" might > imply endorsement.) > > Philip Sheppard urged that the resolution drafted by the NC > explicitly > endorse the S/K principles. Nobody else was enthusiastic about discussing > the principles at Tuesday's meeting. Rather, the NC added this > language to > its resolution: "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." > > The last paragraph of the NC resolution states: "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." > (An earlier version had included the sentence: "We urge those participants > to continue to contribute their expertise in these issues as these matters > move on to consideration by the Board and implementation." This was > deleted at the suggestion of Philip Sheppard, who pointed out that in his > view WG-C had completed its work. Other NC members agreed that the NC > shouldn't affirmatively encourage us to keep going.) > > In fact, I figure on sending a note to the NC tomorrow > recommending that > this WG be disbanded, for three reasons: [1] We've run out of time. Under > the Board's resolution in Cairo, now that the NC has voted, it's > the job of > ICANN staff to draw up "draft policies, draft implementation documents, > commentary, and statements of issues" on the introduction of new gTLDs so > that the Board can take action in Yokohama. Louis Touton has advised the > NC that it needs to complete its recommendations within a month if ICANN > staff are to be able to take them fully into account. That's simply not > enough time for us to reach further consensus recommendations and > the NC to > request public comment on those points and vote them up or down. > [2] If we > were to do more work, I'm not sure on what basis we'd proceed. The WG > reached a consensus in favor of 6-10; the NC has rejected it. > That's their > prerogative, but how would we proceed from here? [3] We're all tired. (I > know I am.) I frankly don't think we'd get a lot more done in any event. > It's time for different bodies to move these issues forward. > > Jon ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 10:25:18 -0400 (EDT) From: James Love Subject: [wg-c] NSI's "survey" shows most don't want 6 to 10 new TLDs NSI, could you respond to Adam's question below? - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 22:48:22 +0900 From: Adam Peake To: NCDNHC-Discuss@lyris.isoc.org Subject: NSI's "New gTLD Survey" http://www.nsol.com/policy/0004gtldsurvey.html Anyone seen the questions, methodology? Adam - --- You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: love@cptech.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ncdnhc-discuss-3220S@lyris.isoc.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 20:14:55 -0400 From: "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." Subject: RE: [wg-c] Thank you... I believe the task for Working Group C commenced nearly 10 months ago. A short time in the lifespan of the TLD debates, for sure, but quite a long time for those of us who joined the WG-C last summer and have followed along throughout that time. Since we are winding down business, may I offer a thanks to Jon, who has performed wonderfully as our co-chair. I would also like to express a personal thanks to everyone who participated on the WG-C. This has been an enlightening experience for me as I have observed and participated in this new and novel attempt at "Internet governance." Our task was a difficult one. There were heated debates/disputes. Some of us listened, and some just argued. But, perhaps, most important, this genuinely democratic process demonstrated how a group can conduct an open and transparent proceeding even when the issues are complex and the participants do most of the work in cyberspace. Thanks, Rod ___________________________________ Rod Dixon Visiting Assistant Professor of Law Rutgers University School of Law Camden www.cyberspaces.org rod@cyberspaces.org ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #94 *************************