Re: [wg-c] Re: [wg-c-3] Notes on new gTLD registries

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Wed, Jul 14, 1999 at 04:33:19PM -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> This is a belated reaction to a note Kent posted to wg-c-3 last week.  He
> urges that we should have new gTLDs, but that the *only* ones to be added
> for now should come from the CORE set, and should be operated by
> not-for-profit shared-registry operators.  Why?  Because only that
> decision, he explains, has sufficient consensus support to be adopted in a
> reasonable time frame.  I'm at a loss to understand this.  I think there
> would be little objection to including CORE gTLDs in the first dozen or so
> rolled out.  But the idea that we should include *only* the CORE gTLDs in
> the ICANN root now, while rejecting any inclusion of proprietary gTLDs
> until after the attainment of an unattainable consensus, strikes me as at
> least as controversial as any other proposed approach.  If we're to adopt
> Kent's position, it will have to be on some basis other than its asserted
> consensus support.

Modulo certain global issues (eg, the completion of a famous marks 
exclusion process), I have seen *no-one* who objects to 
non-proprietary gTLDs being put in the root -- even Chris Ambler has 
stated multiple times that he doesn't mind having non-profit, public 
resource style registries.  (*)

On the other hand, it is incontrovertible that there is widespread
and deep opposition to the idea of putting proprietary gTLDs in the
root.

Furthermore, we can insert non-proprietary TLDs in the root *without*
deciding the ultimate question of whether proprietary TLDs should be
allowed -- inserting even a single proprietary TLD requires that
decision to be made.  Remember that there are *no* proprietary TLDs
of any stripe in the root, now.  Adding one would be new legal 
ground for ICANN, whereas adding non-proprietary TLDs would be much 
less novel.

While Chris Ambler has been making veiled threats of legal action if
*his* .web isn't the first gTLD added, adding a new proprietary
registry is just as likely to cause a flood of lawsuits from *other*
wannabe registry owners -- if Chris can sue his way into the root,
why can't they? And on the other side, I know that I personally would
look into what legal remedies can be found if any proprietary
registry is added -- I wonder on what legal grounds could ICANN grant
a permanent franchise in the root zone.  [After a number of years in
this I know quite a few lawyers :-)]

It is my personal opinion that ICANN has no realistic choice in this 
matter -- I don't think they can afford to do anything as 
controversial as breaking the totally new ground of adding a private 
TLD.

You note my use of "the CORE set".  Though I am a CORE supporter,
that is, believe it or not, not the reason I propose them.  I propose
them because they (minus .web -- I only proposed six) have a
substantial history as non-proprietary gTLD candidates.  [Notice that
I am proposing *names*, not registries.]

If there were other obvious non-proprietary candidate gTLD names I
would be happy with them.  The CORE set is, however, by far the most 
widely known.


> I'm also puzzled by Kent's assertion that the White Paper mandated that
> new gTLD registries be shared.

That was an exuberant overstatement on my part.  The White Paper made
a very substantial retreat from the Green Paper on this issue, on the
basis of the strong objections received, but I agree -- the text you 
quote certainly does not mandate shared registries...

================================================================ 
(*)I should say "among those who are willing to have new gTLDs" -- while
it seems clear that there is strong support for new gTLDs in this WG,
there is no doubt at all that there are some who don't want any new
gTLDs. 

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain