Re: [wg-c] straw poll -- final reminder

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

Hi Elisabeth,
	Bravo. I agree 200%

Yours, John Broomfield.

> Jonathan,
> 
> I think that Caroline, Marylin and Ted (sorry if I forgot others)
> made a right objections on voting, considering motions from
> the NC in Santiago.
> 
> As I am listed in your reminder, please find here my 
> few comments explaining *WHY* I have difficulties to vote.
> 
> I am completely open to the issue of gTLDs,
> provided that before anything is decided as to process
> of their creation ("how many how fast"), we consider
> approprietely lessons given by the .com/.org/.net creation.
> 
> I would say that almost all problems of .com/.org/.net are
> fairly described in the White Paper, and remedies to that
> may be observed in day-to-day ICANN process.
> The list of main problems:
>     - monopoly if the gTLD is not shared registry
>       and the string TLD became popular
>     - rights to whois and DNS database: no private intellectual
>       or other property rights inhere to the gTLD itself
>       as the result of gTLD delegation
>       (if not it reinforce monopoly)
>     - the determination of rules for dispute resolution policy
>       regarding domain names registration (all human activities,
>       not only Internet related, take names without restriction 
>       from the dictionnaries, which are human global ressource
>       - once theses activities are projected into the common
>       Internet domain names space conflicts are inavoidable);
>       the subsequent are forbidden names (which names shall be
>       forbidden and why ?)
>     - determination if on the international level any rule
>       trying to create gTLD brand name may be reinforced
>       (I stated that not, the brand name may be reinforced
>       under one country law, sometimes with difficulties,
>       maybe under international treaty, but not in the 
>       general international case -- it is exactly what happen 
>       to .com/.org/.net)
> 
> Setting up a new gTLD in such a way that all main known problems
> we have with .com/.org/.net are avoided from start,
> could replace the competition on the registrars level,
> which I see much more sane. Then gTLD registries could be seen
> as very lightweight group, with the main goal of mutual
> responsability to registrants: insure openess to registrars,
> notify them a new, yet unknown global dispute rules which may
> be necessary for arising new problems,
> and guaranty that in case of one registry defect the 
> corresponding registered domain names will be maintained 
> by appropriate replacement.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Elisabeth
> 
> > Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 23:21:50 -0400
> > To: wg-c@dnso.org
> > From: Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>
> > Subject: [wg-c] straw poll -- final reminder
> > 
> > 	A reminder, for those of you who have been following the debate over
> > whether we should be conducting the straw poll: That poll closes at
> > midnight EDT on Wednesday ("tomorrow" as I write this; "today" for most of
> > you reading it).  If you haven't yet submitted your views, I urge you to do
> > so.
> > 
> > 	(That means you, Mark Langston, Jean-Michel Becar, Roger Cochetti, Rita
> > Odin, Marilyn Cade, Tod Cohen, Elisabeth Porteneuve, Bill Semich, Richard
> > Lindsay, Ken Stubbs, William Walsh, Kilnam Chon, Ross Wm. Rader, Mark
> > Measday, Robert F. Connolly, Hal Lubsen, Ann-Catherine Andersson, Javier
> > Sola, Martin Schwimmer, Kathryn Klieman, Petter Rindforth, John Lewis,
> > Caroline Chicoine, and a bunch of others).
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
>