Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU

[Joseph Friedman <josephf@touro.edu>]

Is the assertion that the USG-DoC holds the keys to the root factually
correct?  My understanding was that they gave these "keys" to ICANN upon
its creation.

--Joseph

On Sat, 5 Feb 2000, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:

> 	Two thoughts:
> 
> 	1. Kent writes:
> >It is not clear at this point that ICANN has the power to create a
> >new TLD of any kind -- recall that it is DoC that currently holds the
> >keys to the root, and that the DoC is vulnerable to many pressures that
> >we don't see. 
> >That is, even if ICANN somehow approves the 10 you fondly dream about,
> >that doesn't mean they will get in the root.  ICANN of course knows
> >this, and is not going to generate a confrontation over the issue. 
> 
> 	I think this is quite mistaken.  I'm writing from the dubious perspective
> of having worked closely with all of the USG players on this issue, most
> especially Becky Burr, during my brief tenure as a bureaucrat in the run-up
> to the Green and White papers.  I've seen the various pressures on DoC.
> But I'm quite confident that if a new gTLD proposal runs the gauntlet of
> the ICANN process, it will be approved by USG.  And I think that ICANN
> knows that too.
> 
> 	2. Kent points out that we haven't done much to develop the processes for
> the introduction of new TLDs, and he's right  -- it's nice that we've got
> recommendations about the need for new TLDs, and about the size of the
> initial rollout, but that's only the first step. We still have before us
> issues including:  What process should ICANN use to select new gTLD
> registries? What minimum qualifications must a gTLD registry have?  In
> particular, must it be a nonprofit entity? Must all gTLD registries operate
> an open SRS?  (If so, should there be common SRS software?  How is it to be
> developed, and by whom?) What process should ICANN use to select new gTLD
> strings?  What characteristics must a new gTLD have?  In particular, must
> it have a "charter" reflecting a specialized purpose? What rules should be
> in place regarding access to registrant data? Should ICANN mandate minimum
> information that a registrant must provide? If so, what should that
> information be?  Should it mandate the manner in which registry or
> registrars in new gTLDs should make that information available?  Should
> there be a centralized database? What further conditions relating to
> trademark-domain name issues, if any, should be satisfied before new gTLDs
> are introduced? 
> 
> 	The fault for this, over the past few weeks, has been mine -- I've had the
> job of moving these issues forward, and I haven't done it.  I've been
> overwhelmed by other responsibilities,and I'm sorry.  I pledge to do
> better.  I'm getting on a plane in a couple hours to attend a conference,
> and I won't be back till Tuesday night, so my contributions until Wednesday
> will be spotty.  After that, though, I belong to you, and I promise to try
> to make up for lost time.  Again, you have my apologies, and a promise to
> do better.
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
> Jonathan Weinberg
> weinberg@msen.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 06:39 PM 2/4/00 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 06:34:31PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >> From: "Kent Crispin" <kent@songbird.com>
> >> > In my opinion anyone that supports new TLDs in ANY form should support
> >> > the .eu proposal.
> >> 
> >> I understand this perspective. But the effective destruction of DNSO
> process
> >> would outweigh the benefits of breaking the logjam, particularly if it is
> >> done under the subterfuge of a new ccTLD.
> >
> >There is no reason to think that this would destroy DNSO process.  On 
> >the contrary, I think it would create incentive to get real DNSO 
> >processes in place.
> >
> >> > It should be clear to anyone paying attention that
> >> > if processes are being developed it is happening at such a slow rate
> >> > that it isn't visible to the naked eye.  The gears are completely
> >> > stuck, and we need movement to get them unstuck.
> >> 
> >> In what sense are they stuck? We have overwhelming support in this WG
> and in
> >> the public comments to proceed with their creation.
> >
> >There has been strong support for the introduction of new TLDs since 
> >before the IAHC.
> >
> >> The Board has indicated
> >> its willingness to discuss the issue at its impending meeting. The next
> step
> >> is to define more specific ways of implementing the introduction of the
> >> first 10 new TLDs. 
> >
> >Ie, the next step is to define the process.  Ie, we have made zero 
> >progress in the definition of process.
> >
> >> If ICANN's board decides to include .EU in that initial
> >> batch, it wouldn't bother me a lot, as long as a procedure was defined to
> >> continue adding them.
> >
> >Ie, ICANN's board will define the process, and the DNSO, and this WG, 
> >will have served the incredibly useful purpose of reporting to the 
> >Board that there is demand for new TLDs.
> >
> >> > But seriously -- it may take something with the political force of the EU
> >> > to get *ANY* TLD through the system.
> >> 
> >> That is true ONLY if the "political force" is channelled into the
> >> development of an open, nondiscriminatory process. If CEC just manages to
> >> win a special concession for itself, it sets a very bad precedent.
> >
> >Possibly, but it also creates the fact of a new TLD *approved through
> >ICANN*.  Right now there are multiple forces arrayed against any new
> >TLDs, including some TM interests, some of the ccTLD registries, and of
> >course NSI.  Those forces have their greatest effect through the USG. 
> >It is not clear at this point that ICANN has the power to create a
> >new TLD of any kind -- recall that it is DoC that currently holds the
> >keys to the root, and that the DoC is vulnerable to many pressures that
> >we don't see. 
> >
> >That is, even if ICANN somehow approves the 10 you fondly dream about,
> >that doesn't mean they will get in the root.  ICANN of course knows
> >this, and is not going to generate a confrontation over the issue.  In
> >my opinion it will take significant political pressure to get ICANN as 
> >a whole in position to even begin using some kind of process.  On the 
> >other hand, if ICANN *does* approve a new TLD, the pressure for 
> >processes will only intensify -- ICANN itself *needs* a process.
> >
> >> I would like to know more explicitly where you stand.
> >> Are you conceding that ICANN's organic processes are useless?
> >> Why are you giving up now?
> >
> >I'm not giving up anything.  My political awareness is different than 
> >yours. 
> >
> >> The issue has not been passed to the NC, nor
> >> formally considered by the Board. The WG has just completed the first phase
> >> of its work. How can you say that we are "stuck?"
> >
> >Because we have accomplished nothing.  No processes will come out of 
> >the DNSO until it is clear that they are actually needed.
> >
> >-- 
> >Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
> >kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> >
> >
>