Re: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed

["Mark C. Langston" <mark@bitshift.org>]

On Tue, Mar 21, 2000 at 10:09:20PM -0500, James Love wrote:
> 
> There are a large number of proposals for TLDs.  If ICANN begins with
> the WG-C proposal of 6 to 10 testbed TLDs, it will be pretty hard to
> decide which TLDs go first.
> 
> Assuming that the testbed is simply the first step in a real expansion
> of the TLD space (as were the first testbed registrars for .com, .net
> and .org), it may not be extremely important which ones go first, but it
> will probably be important enough to be controversial.
> 


If my concerns bear fruit, the 6-10 will be the only expansion to 
occur unless and until we all go through this same process again in
a year or two.  Though it may sound paranoid, it's not entirely
unreasonable to believe this.

Therefore, I'd place additional importance on the selection of the
initial 6-10 testbed TLDs.


> I propose the decision making be decentralized.  I would recommend 3 be
> selected by the business/registrar constituencies, 3 by the
> non-commercial domain holders, and 3 selected by the ICANN at large
> members, in an online vote.  

The ICANN At-Large membership does not yet exist, by ICANN's own 
bylaws (req. 5,000).  Furthermore, ICANN's move to usurp what little
power-by-proxy the At-Large membership had by deciding they would choose
which At-Large members would become Directors, and limiting that number
to 5 has effectively demolished what little legitimacy the At-Large 
membership might have enjoyed.  

Thowing the vote open to the At-Large "membership" at this point would
be about as effective as polling the DNSO general assembly on the matter.

I furthermore am VERY uncomfortable with doling out decisions piecemeal
to the various constituencies, and I won't be at all surprised if other
constituencies who you haven't listed join me in that concern.

The decision should be a very simple one:  Is there any technical reason
why the propposed gTLD should not exist (NOTE:  This concerns only a
proposed gTLD, not its prospective hosting registry)?  If there is no
reason, then the gTLD should be accepted.  Then, the same question should
be asked of a prospective registry petitioning to host the gTLD.  The
two petitions should be submitted separately and considered separately
and impartially.

> That's 9, and the 10th could be selected in
> some other way.  Perhaps a lottery by those with "pioneer" proposals, or
> something else.  

Why not a lottery for all?  After all, it's only random 3-character
strings.


> This would provide a simple way to reduce the power
> that any one group would have, and it would probably also lead to some
> diversity in the types of management structures considered in the first
> round.
> 

Actually, I think your proposal, however well-intentioned, provides
significant power to certain groups while excluding others.


-- 
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org
Systems & Network Admin
San Jose, CA