Addendum to WG-C consensus report to the Names Council
On April 11th, 2000, Jonathan Weinberg presented a set of three consensus calls to the WG-C:
Message-Id: <email@example.com> Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 11:29:18 -0400 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: Jonathan Weinberg
As promised, here is a set of three consensus calls. Please note that these are *three separate items*, and that you need to vote on them *separately*. That is, it won't work to send in a response that says "I vote yes," or "I vote no." Rather, you need to vote yes or no on *each* of the three items. The deadline for voting is Monday, April 17 at 4 pm UTC (6 pm in Brussels, noon in New York, 9 am in Los Angeles, 1 am the following day in Tokyo).
I want to urge *everyone* in the WG to weigh in on these three items. If you like ‘em, vote yes. If you don't, vote no. There's nothing wrong with a proposed consensus item failing if the members of the WG, having decided that it's a bad idea, vote against it. But there's something very wrong with an item failing because too few of the WG members bother to cast a vote at all.
Here are the three items.
PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE
The initial rollout should include a range of top level domains, from open TLDs to restricted TLDs with more limited scope.
PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO
Criteria for assessing a gTLD application, subject to current technical constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should be based on all of the following principles :
1. Meaning: An application for a TLD should explain the significance of the proposed TLD string, and how the applicant contemplates that the new TLD will be perceived by the relevant population of net users. The application may contemplate that the proposed TLD string will have its primary semantic meaning in a language other than English.
2. Enforcement: An application for a TLD should explain the mechanism for charter enforcement where relevant and desired.
3. Differentiation: The selection of a TLD string should not confuse net users, and so TLDs should be clearly differentiated by the string and/or by the marketing and functionality associated with the string.
4. Diversity: New TLDs are important to meet the needs of an expanding Internet community. They should serve both commercial and non-commercial goals.
5. Honesty: A TLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for malicious or criminal elements who wish to defraud net users.
6. Competition: The authorization process for new TLDs should not be used as a means of protecting existing service providers from competition.
PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE
WG-C recommends that the Names Council charter a working group to develop policy regarding internationalized domain names using non-ASCII characters.
On April 17th, 2000, Jonathan Weinberg announced the results of consensus call and presented it both, to the Names Council and to the WG-C:
Message-Id: <email@example.com> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 22:28:40 -0400 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: Jonathan Weinberg
It seems to me that we got rough consensus on items one and two.
On item one, the vote tally was 50 YES, 18 NO. The NO voters included both persons urging that the initial rollout should include *only* open gTLDs (such as Crocker, Broomfield, McCarthy, Teernstra, Wesson, Dalgleish), and persons skeptical of open gTLDs (such as Sheppard, Gymer, Schwimmer).
On item two, the vote tally was 46 YES, 21 NO, 1 ABSTAIN. The most common objection among the NO voters was that the principles (while well-meant) were not useful or meaningful, and were too vague and subjective to serve as technical requirements.
Item three came nowhere near achieving rough consensus. (The final tally was 19 YES, 33 NO, 17 ABSTAIN.) The most common criticism was that the technical specifications for internationalized domain names, now under consideration by an IETF working group, are still undeveloped, so any action to charter a DNSO working group would be premature.
Vote tallies follow.
YES: Fausett, Ambler, Lee, Brunner, Alvestrand, Love, Auerbach, Langston, Mueller, Dixon, Denton, Linares, Walsh, Yap, Seng, Shrewsbury, Campbell, Becar, Vienneau, Kamantauskas, Parker, Dawson, Feld, Elliott, Penman, Greenwell, Higgs, Chon, Vestal, Simon, Schuckman, Renard, Winter, Kroon, Schutt, Stubbs, Graehl, Connelly, Rindforth, Lubsen, Tan, Lupo, Echeberria, Iriarte, Semich, A.-C. Andersson, Park, A. Andersson, Kang, Kozlowski
NO: Crocker, Broomfield, Connolly, Rader, McCarthy, Kelsey, Sheppard, Tamulione, Gymer, Joshi, Teernstra, Schwimmer, Cade, Wesson, Dalgleish, Garvey, Porteneuve, Winer
YES: Fausett, Ambler, Lee, Alvestrand, Love, Broomfield, Mueller, Dixon, Linares, Walsh, Winer, Yap, Seng, Sheppard, Shrewsbury, Campbell, Becar, Tamulione, Vinneau, Parker, Dawson, Feld, Gymer, Penman, Joshi, Chon, Vestal, Schuckman, Renard, Winter, Kroon, Stubbs, Connelly, Rindforth, Lubsen, Tan, Lupo, Dalgleish, Echeberria, Iriarte, A.-C. Andersson, Park, A. Andersson, Kang, Kozlowski, Porteneuve
NO: Crocker, Brunner, Auerbach, Connolly, Langston, Denton, Rader, McCarthy, Kelsey, Kamantauskas, Elliott, Greenwell, Simon, Teernstra, Schutt, Schwimmer, Cade, Grahl, Wesson, Semich, Garvey.
YES: Crocker, Lee, Love, Broomfield, Dixon, Denton, Linares, Winer, Yap, Shrewsbury, Becar, Dawson, Penman, Stubbs, Connelly, Tan, Park, Kang, Kozlowski
NO: Ambler, Brunner, Alvestrand, Auerbach, Connolly, Langston, Mueller, Walsh, Rader, Kelsey, Sheppard, Campbell, Vienneau, Kamantauskas, Elliott, Gymer, Greenwell, Joshi, Chon, Vestal, Simon, Schuckman, Teernstra, Renard, Winter, Kroon, Cade, Wesson, Lubsen, Dalgleish, Semich, Porteneuve, Winer
ABSTAIN: Fausett, Seng, McCarthy, Tamulione, Parker, Feld, Higgs, Schutt, Schwimmer, Graehl, Rindforth, Lupo, Echeberria, Iriarte, A.-C. Andersson, A. Andersson, Garvey