[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-c-1] Wecome to Drafting Committee 1
Your analysis of the situation that has been discussed is very clear, but
it moves away from the charter of this drafting committee. We have been
asked by the Names Council some specific questions that we are supposed to
>* Should ICANN, in expanding the name space, consider the names or charters
>of the particular TLDs seeking authorization, so as to achieve policy goals
>relating to the structure of the expanded name space?
The dilema can also be stated as: should it be the internet community the
one to define the names of new gTLDs or should it be the arbitrary decision
of some entity that has been selected as a registry.
To me the answer is very clear: It should be the Internet community. That
is why the DNSO has been created and also why this drafting committee has,
in its charter (approved by the Names Coucil) these specific questions.
> Or should it
>consider only the number of new TLDs, and the speed at which they should be
>added, leaving the structure of the expanded name space to the marketplace?
The structure of the registry system is dealt with by Drafting committee 3.
The idea is to build a constructive policy that will give stability to the
Internet. Our goal is to define what this policy should be and recommend it
to ICANN. We are not at all concerned with anybody asking ICANN or anybody
else for a private TLD. Many of us believe that gTLDs should be managed on
a non-profit basis, but this is being discussed in a different drating
committee. Drafting Committee 1 is not concerned with registries.
> But unless we can reach adequate consensus that
>ICANN *should* be considering the names or charters of the particular TLDs
>seeking authorization, then we're not in a position to consider either
>"what should the new TLDs be" or whether they should have charters.
Again, our goal is not to discuss our charter. We have joined a drafting
committee that has to answer some very specific questions.
>1. Should there be new gTLDs? If so, how many?
>2. If there are to be new gTLDs, should they be introduced all at one time,
>one at a time, or in groups, and over what time period?
>3. Assuming that a limited number of new gTLDs is to be deployed over a
>period of time in the near future, how should ICANN select the gTLDs to be
>deployed, and the registries deploying them?
We are the ones who should recommend which ones should be deployed. ICANN
executes policy that it approves, but the policy has to come from the DNSO.
Registries are not the concern of DC 1.
> Should it consider the names
>or charters of the particular TLDs seeking authorization?
"TLDs" do not seek authorisation. TLD are not entities. Please do not take
this as sarcasm, but TLDs do not know how to write an application. A person
may apply to ICANN. Anybody can apply for anything they want to anybody
they want, but this is not our concern here.
One of the goals of our drafting committee is to figure out which and how
many TLDs should be deployed
>If so, what
>should the new gTLDs be? In what order should they be introduced? Should
>each one, or certain ones, have a specific charter? In other words, should
>some gTLDs be limited to use by certain entities, and if so should the
>limitation be mandatory?
A charter could not only limit the type of organization that could have it,
it could also limit the type of contents (would this be considered as
> If the limitation is to be mandatory, what should
>be the enforcement mechanism and who should be the enforcement body?
>4. What should be the mechanism for developing new gTLDs after the first
>new gTLDs are deployed?