[wg-c] Proposing a Co-chair for WGC

[Ivan Pope <ivan@netnames.com>]

I thank Jonathan for his good sense, which I will reply to later.
I would like to formally propose Jonathan Weinberg as Co-chair of WGC.
Thanks,
Ivan



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:weinberg@mail.msen.com]
> Sent: 14 July 1999 21:33
> To: wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: [wg-c] Re: [wg-c-3] Notes on new gTLD registries
> 
> 
> 	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.
> 
> 	I'm also puzzled by Kent's assertion that the White 
> Paper mandated that
> new gTLD registries be shared.  The White Paper took no 
> position on this
> issue, but, if anything, its discussion favors a system of 
> "competitive
> and/or for-profit" registry operators.  Here's the key White 
> Paper language:
> 
> 	>>>>>Both sides of this argument [whether new gTLD 
> registry operations
> should be run on a "competitive and/or for-profit" basis] 
> have considerable
> merit.  It is possible that additional discussion and 
> information will shed
> light on this issue, and therefore . . . the U.S. Government 
> has concluded
> that the issue should be left for further consideration and 
> final action by
> the new corporation.  The U.S. Government is of the view, 
> however, that
> competitive systems generally result in greater innovation, consumer
> choice, and satisfaction in the long run.  Moreover, the pressure of
> competition is likely to be the most effective means of discouraging
> registries from acting monopolistically.
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
> Jon Weinberg
> Professor of Law, Wayne State University
> weinberg@msen.com
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >                  Notes on New gTLD Registries
> >                         July 7, 1999
> >
> >
> >Terminology
> >-----------
> >
> >It's probably impossible to get everybody to agree on terminology, 
> >but at least I want to be sure that people understand what I 
> am using:
> >
> >database:  (abstract) a formally structured collection of data; 
> >(concrete) a system of computer software/hardware that implements a 
> >database.
> >
> >TLD: One of the entries in the IANA-approved root zone.
> >
> >gTLD: a TLD that has no enforced criteria for the entities that may 
> >register in it.  This departs from the rfc1591 definition.
> >
> >Registry: a database associating DNS information with some person,
> >legal entity, operational entity, or other referrent.  Note that we
> >can speak of a registry in the abstract or in the concrete, as per
> >the definition of "database" above.  To emphasize the abstract
> >meaning we may use the terms "registry database", or possibly
> >"registry data". 
> >
> >gTLD registry: a registry for a particular gTLD ("the .com 
> registry").
> >
> >Registry operator: the organization or business that operates a 
> >registry.  This distinction is very important:  NSI is the operator 
> >of the .com registry;  Emergent was the operator of the prototype 
> >CORE registry.
> >
> >Registry administrator:  registry operator.
> >
> >Registrar: an entity with a direct contractual relationship with, and
> >special access to, a registry, that inserts records on behalf of
> >others. 
> >
> >Registration agent: Registrar
> >
> >Shared Registry: a registry that allows access from multiple
> >distinct registrars.
> >
> >
> >Premises
> >--------
> >
> >While it is possible to argue these in other contexts, I consider 
> >them to be part of the ground rules of this discussion:
> >
> >1)  New gTLD registries will be shared registries (mandate from 
> >white paper)
> >
> >2) ICANN will accredit all gTLD registrars (white paper; ICANN/USG 
> >MoU)
> >
> >3) We are only interested in the IANA root zone.
> >
> >4) The dns system is part of the public service infrastructure -- it 
> >  includes governments, schools, museums, and long-term data 
> >  archives as its users.  With the deployment of the vastly  
> large IPV6 
> >  address space, individual traffic lights could be have domain 
> >  names, and be synchronized over the internet.  Consequently, 
> >  stability of operation of the dns is the *primary* requirement.  
> >
> >
> >
> >Profit, non-profit, cost-recovery, public trust/resource
> >--------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >A substantial body of opinion exists that *all* gTLD registries
> >should be public resources; there is another body of opinion that
> >states that some gTLD registries could be privately controlled; but
> >there is no significant body of opinion that states that *all*
> >registries must be privately controlled.  That is, no one has a
> >significant problem with there being some "public resource" oriented
> >gTLDs.
> >
> >The controversy, therefore, has been over whether there should be
> >privately controlled gTLDs.  Feelings run very deep on both sides of
> >this issue, and it seems clear that the controversy will not reach 
> >a consensus.  
> >
> >Therefore, the only prospect for getting new gTLDs in the root in any
> >reasonable time frame is for them to be admitted under the "public
> >resource" model. 
> >
> >The characteristics of the "public resource" model are as follows:
> >
> >  The registry data is considered a public resource, subject to
> >  privacy limitations, held in trust for the public by ICANN.
> >
> >  The registry is operated as a shared registry on a not-for-profit
> >  cost-recovery basis.  The registry operator, however, may be a
> >  for-profit company, operating the registry under contract to 
> >  ICANN.  The registry operator may be removed for cause, and the 
> >  contract would be rebid on a periodic basis.  
> >
> >  Since the data in the registry is considered a public resource, it
> >  should be escrowed under different control from the registry
> >  operator, and in widely dispersed jurisdictions and locations.
> >
> >  Ideally, there would be several registry operators, any one of
> >  which could, within a few days, assume operation of a gTLD registry
> >  from escrowed data.  These registry operators should be distributed
> >  worldwide.  Presumably each registry operator would operate several
> >  gTLD registries at the same facility.  
> >
> >  Even more ideal, the transfer of registries from one registry
> >  operator to another would be completely routine -- for example, a
> >  small company in a location with lesser internet access could run
> >  several very small registries, but transfer a gTLD to another,
> >  better connected registry operator if the load got to high.  This
> >  would enable developing countries to develop registries.
> >
> >  Registry operators can fail; physical disasters can strike a 
> >  particular installation.  Having multiple dispersed registry 
> >  sites with multiple operators gives a great deal of robustness to 
> >  the whole DNS.  A single monolithic site, no matter how secure, 
> >  can fail, but distributing registries like this, with escrowed 
> >  copies of the registry data available for quick switchovers would 
> >  be a far more bombproof and resilient system.
> >
> >  A requirement of easy transferability of registry data is that the 
> >  underlying software and protocols be standardized.
> >
> >
> >Concrete Proposal
> >-----------------
> >
> >With the above model in mind, I propose the following:
> >
> >  1) Six new gTLDs be approved immediately.  I would propose that
> >  they be chosen from the IAHC gTLD set; and that CORE relinquish any
> >  intellectual property rights they may have acquired in these names
> >  to ICANN. 
> >
> >  2) That a request for proposal for registry operators be tendered
> >  quickly.  The goal of this rfp would be for three independent
> >  registry operators from three different regions of the world to
> >  operate six gTLD registries, two per operator. 
> >
> >  3) That ICANN support the standardization effort in the IETF for a
> >  shared registry protocol, and that the six new registries all use
> >  this protocol.
> >
> >  4) That the new registries operate according to the public 
> >  resource model described above.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-- 
> >Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
> >kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> >
> >
>