[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-c] Straw Vote
At 04:52 PM 8/12/99 , you wrote:
I would answer these in the following fashion, but not
necessarily within an ambit of an ICANN regime.
>QUESTION ONE: HOW MANY NEW gTLDS, AND HOW FAST?
>Option 2: ICANN should implement a plan contemplating the authorization of
>many new gTLDs over the next few years. (Example: ICANN might plan to
>QUESTION TWO: HOW TO SELECT TLD STRINGS AND REGISTRIES?
> Option 4: ICANN should start by adding the existing "alternate" gTLDs,
>and then find a neutral method to continue adding new TLD strings, focusing
>on names that have already been proposed.
> Option 5: ICANN should pick a set of registries, according to
>predetermined, objective criteria. The registries would then choose their
>own gTLD strings, subject to some process or rules under which ICANN could
>resolve conflicts, and could deem certain gTLD strings out of bounds. This
>approach would incorporate a mechanism under which existing registries
>could apply for authorization to add additional gTLD strings. The
>registry-selection criteria might reserve a certain number of slots for
>registries based in each region of the world.
>QUESTION THREE: SHOULD REGISTRIES BE FOR-PROFIT OR NON-PROFIT? HOW MANY
>gTLDS SHOULD THEY RUN?
> Option 4: Some registries would be run on a not-for-profit, cost-recovery
>basis. Other registries, however, could be run on a for-profit basis. Any
>registry could operate any number of gTLDs.
plus limit the number of gTLDs per registry. I argue that it
would be unlawfully discriminatory to differentiate between
for profit and not for profit businesses.
>QUESTION FOUR: SHOULD ICANN REQUIRE SHARING?
> Option 2: An ICANN rule would presumptively require that gTLDs be shared,
>but ICANN would allow exceptions in particular cases. (A single registry
>might run both shared and non-shared gTLDs.)
The appropriate approach is probably Option 2, but with something
other than a presumptive test. What that test is, is not apparent.