[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALL -- selecting the gTLDs in the initial rollout
My intention in using the word "registries" was to include not only NSI
and the ccTLD registries, but also new entities seeking to operate
registries for the new TLDs. Since apparently that wasn't clear from
context, I'll make it explicit in any discussion of the consensus call
(whether it succeeds or fails) in our report.
The compromise position referenced in the consensus call is entirely
consistent with the Position Paper E proposal as I understand it: PPE
proposes a particular set of registry operators (NIEC, Treaty 7 Tribal
Council, Nat'l Indian Telecom Inst., Abenaki Community of Portland) for the
.NAA registry, and makes it clear (I think) that these folks propose to be
the actual operational registry (as opposed to mere sponsoring entities
with policy authority). If ICANN adopted the position set out in the
consensus call, then the next step for .NAA would be for you, Geogh,
Mandell & Cristeau to submit the .NAA proposal in your capacity as the
folks seeking to operate the proposed registry.
(The recent discussion also makes clear that different folks supporting
the consensus call may have different understandings of what the word
"registry" conveys, and what an application would consist of. If the
proposition succeeds in our vote, any discussion in the report we make to
the NC will have to recognize that divergence.)
It's true that there are a lot of questions this consensus call *doesn't*
answer — shared/unshared, non-profit/for-profit, etc. I'm just trying to
take the issues one at a time, and to cut them into small enough pieces
that we can actually reach some agreements — same as always.
At 09:04 AM 3/12/00 -0500, Eric Brunner wrote:
>On Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 06:28:52PM -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>> ... suggest the only approach
>> with a chance of winning rough consensus in the WG for selecting the gTLDs
>> in the initial rollout is ...
> Registries would apply describing their proposed TLD, and an
> ICANN body or process would make selections taking into account
> the characteristics of both the registry and its proposed TLD.
>1. Under the ICANN By-Laws and within the existing Accredited Constituencies
>of the DNSO, at present, "registries" are the following set of entities:
> o Network Solutions Inc., Don Telage the contact of record
> o some number of ccTLD registries, Dennis Jennings and Patricio
> Poblete the contacts of record
> <Dennis.Jennings@ucd.ie, firstname.lastname@example.org>
>2. The proposal removes, albeit for the initial cohort of new gTLDs only,
>the capacity for initiating the procedure for the creation of new gTLD(s)
>from the ICANN Board or their designates other than "registries".
>3. The proposal simply restates without clarification the charter of WG-C
>when reference is made to a "body or process" and "characteristics" of the
>registry operator and the registry charter.
>For these three reasons I oppose the proposal.
>i. NSI has not indicated an interest in creating a SLD consistent with
>Position Paper E, nor any SLD organized or conceived as a human or civil
>right rather than as a right to market. There is little or nothing to
>suggest that NSI would operate differently if given the delegation(s)
>to operate new TLDs.
>ii. The ICANN Board, through the agency of its subordinate body, the DNSO
>Names Council, may consider directly the specific proposition expressed in
>Position Paper E, and the general proposition that it may act in opposition
>to the interests of current holders of ICANN TLD delegations.
>iii. The difficult issues were identified in 1997, in the IAHC process.
>A short reminder: access model (shared vs not), cost recovery model
>(non-profit or for-profit), just to name two.
>WG-C could be re-chartered excluding the substantive questions of policy,
>or the chartering authority can conclude that on its own based upon the
>choice by WG-C to offer no specific recommendations except vague excerpts
>from the DoC White Paper.
>I join with Kent Crispin and urge the participants in WG-C to reject this