Re: [wg-c] Straw Vote

["Siegfried Langenbach" <svl@nrw.net>]

On 12 Aug 99, at 16:52, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:

finally more than just noice.

> QUESTION ONE: HOW MANY NEW gTLDS, AND HOW FAST?
> 
> Option 1:	Without regard to whether it would be desirable to have many
> gTLDs in the long term, ICANN should proceed now by adding only a few, and
> then pausing for evaluation.  Only after assessing the results should it
> initiate any action to add more.

Agree.

> 
> Option 2:	ICANN should implement a plan contemplating the authorization of
> many new gTLDs over the next few years.  (Example: ICANN might plan to
> authorize up to 10-12 new registries, each operating 1-3 new gTLDs, each
> year, for a period of five years; each year's authorizations would be
> staggered over the course of the year.)  This option would place the burden
> on opponents, if evidence comes in demonstrating that additional new gTLDs
> are a bad idea or that the rollout is too fast, to bring that evidence to
> ICANN's attention and call for a halt or a slowdown.
> 
> 
> QUESTION TWO: HOW TO SELECT TLD STRINGS AND REGISTRIES?
> 
> 	Option 1:  ICANN should decide on a set of new gTLD strings, and then
> solicit applications from would-be registries (or existing registries) to
> run those TLDs.  In picking the new gTLD strings, it should use an ad hoc
> approach to choose the new gTLDs that it thinks will best serve the
> Internet community.  Each proponent of a new gTLD would apply to the NC for
> formation of a WG devoted to that gTLD string (or to several strings).  The
> WG would then generate a charter for each proposed new TLD, and it would be
> up to the NC and ICANN to approve the WG's product.  This process would
> likely generate some broad-based TLDs along with some more narrowly focused
> ones (which might have restrictive registration policies).
> 
> 	Option 2: Same as Option One, except that a standing WG would make
> periodic proposals for new gTLDs.

Yes


> 
> 	Option 3:  ICANN should decide on a set of new gTLD strings, and then
> solicit applications from would-be registries (or existing registries) to
> run those TLDs.  Before picking the new gTLD strings, it should agree on a
> predetermined structure for the namespace (such as a Yellow Pages-type
> taxonomy).  All new gTLDs, under this approach, would be limited-purpose.
> This approach would be responsive to Dennis Jennings' concern that "the set
> of gTLDs that are active must, to be successful, be clearly understood by
> the vast majority of Internet  users (in English) to point to clearly
> defined and (ideally) non-overlapping sub-sets of the possible Internet
> hosts."
> 
> 	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 1: All registries would be run on a not-for-profit, cost-recovery
> basis.  (The "registry operator," in the sense that Emergent was the
> operator of the planned CORE registry, could be a for-profit company.)
> Registries could operate any number of gTLDs.

Yes

> 
> 	Option 2:  Some registries would be run on a not-for-profit, cost-recovery
> basis, and could operate any number of gTLDs.  Other registries, however,
> could be run on a for-profit basis, and would be limited to one gTLD each.
> 
> 	Option 3:  Some registries would be run on a not-for-profit, cost-recovery
> basis, and could operate any number of gTLDs..  Other registries, however,
> could be run on a for-profit basis, and would be limited to a small number
> of gTLDs (say, three).
> 
> 	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.
> 
> 
> QUESTION FOUR:  SHOULD ICANN REQUIRE SHARING?
> 
> 	Option 1: All gTLDs would be shared (that is, open to competitive
> registrars).

Yes

> 
> 	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.)
> 
> 	Option 3:  ICANN would not require registries to support competitive
> registrars in any of their gTLDs, although registries might independently
> choose to do so.
> 

siegfried