RE: [wg-c] Straw Vote

[bill@mail.nic.nu (J. William Semich)]

Elisabeth is on the right track, and other members of this list should
consider her line of reasoning seriously.

In addition, WG-C should request that ICANN re-impose the requirements that
.com, .net and .org should be returned to their status as "controlled"
domain names, with .com exclusively available for commercial entities, .net
limited to network providers and .org for noncommercial and individuals.
Then use .US for a wider range of controlled TLDs, such as .law.us,
.cpa.us, .med.us etc.

But the real question truly is - "why do we need more gTLDs?" 

What is the benefit to Internet users? We must very clearly state these
reasons and the benefits to justify this process.

Bill Semich

and At 12:08 AM 8/17/99 +0200, Elisabeth PORTENEUVE wrote:
>I fully agree with Marilyn:
>
>| Message-ID: <6751E347E374D211857100A0C92563DC637458@MAILDC>
>| From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>
>| To: "'rmeyer@mhsc.com'" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>,
>|         Jonathan Weinberg
>|          <weinberg@mail.msen.com>, wg-c@dnso.org
>| Subject: RE: [wg-c] Straw Vote
>| Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:43:27 -0400
>|
>| I don't believe that we are actually ready to start "balloting" even as
>| "straw polls"; we first need to assess whether we have diverse and broad
>| participation engaged in the dialogue about this sensitive and critical set
>| of issues.  Let's take a quick assessment, pre-Santiego, on how
>| representative this effort is. 
>
>I may add that before asking myself the QUESTION ONE,
>and needed to understand the QUESTION ZERO: WHY this permanent
>pressure and a rush for gTLDs ?
>
>What US folks do not see is that they should restore to live
>.US, set up some brand STLDs under that, and see how it works
>under US law. As of today the US folks do not have a choice 
>-- it is .com/.org/.net -- they are screaming, and making 
>a worldwide noisy fuss for US internal matters.
>
>The .US is not destroyed neither useless. There is only 50 STLDs
>allocated -- it leaves millions of possibilities.
>The Naming Authority for .US is needed, the law is US,
>just some experience missing.
>As I stated in my previous email, there is no enforcability
>of brand gTLD on the international level, .law is useless.
>But the .law.us is perfectly well defined, and probably needed
>by customers and lawyers (US and non-US), it is quality approach.
>There is number of others, let competitors imagine
>and submit it to the US Naming Authority.
>
>> QUESTION ONE: HOW MANY NEW gTLDS, AND HOW FAST?
>My answer is: none. 
>.US first and immediately, this will alleviate pressure,
>and bring some experience.
>The next step is a complete study about international
>rules under which new gTLDs should operate.
>
>Elisabeth
>