Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- new reminder

[Craig Simon <cls@flywheel.com>]

Q2: Option 4 (I recognize this as closest to my own compromise proposal
submitted to WG-C Group 1. The text is available in the WGC1 archives and at
http://www.flywheel.com/ircw/wgc1plan.html )

Q3: Option 3 (I prefer option 1, but I beleive that moving forward on the
basis of option 3 would make it easiest for this process to proceed while
agreeing to disagree on the final disposition of com/net/org)

Q4: Option 2 (curious to know how those exceptions would be granted)

Craig Simon

Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> 
>         Fifteen people, so far, have submitted their views on questions two
> through four of the straw poll.  The folks who voted on question one (or
> explained what they would say if they were voting), but haven't yet voted
> on the remaining questions, include Mark Langston, Jean-Michel Becar,
> Milton Mueller, Joop Teernstra, Roger Cochetti, Rita Odin, Marilyn Cade,
> Tod Cohen, Paul Stahura, Elisabeth Porteneuve, Bill Semich, Dave Crocker,
> Richard Lindsay, Ken Stubbs, William Walsh, Kilnam Chon, Ross Wm. Rader,
> Mark Measday, Robert F. Connolly, Hal Lubsen, Ann-Catherine Andersson,
> Craig Simon, Javier Sola, Martin Schwimmer, Kathryn Klieman, Petter
> Rindforth, John Lewis, and Caroline Chicoine.  Please submit votes by
> midnight EDT on Wednesday, August 27, under the subject line "straw vote".
> 
>         Thanks.
> 
> Jon
> 
> Jonathan Weinberg
> co-chair, WG-C
> weinberg@msen.com
> 
> -------------
> 
> 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.
> 
>         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.
> 
>         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).
> 
>         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.