Re: [wg-c] Working Group C agenda

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

At 09:35 PM 3/28/00 -0500, James Love wrote:
>At this point, what is Working Group C trying to achieve?  
>What are the issues that Working Group C is expected to address?
>If Working Group C fails to make progress on the details of how new TLDs
>get created, what happens?  Nothing?

	Here's the story.  The ICANN Board in Cairo resolved, in part:

>   Resolved that the Names Council is requested to submit recommendations
on the topic of the introduction of new generic top-level domains, taking
into account protection of globally famous trademarks, no later than April
20, 2000;
>    Resolved that the staff is authorized and instructed to prepare,
taking into account any working group reports and Names Council
recommendations received and based on consultation with the Names Council,
draft policies, draft implementation documents, commentary, and statements
of issues on these topics, to be posted for public comment on the ICANN web
site in advance of the Board's meeting in Yokohama on July 15-16, 2000; and
>    Resolved that the Board notes its intention to act on these topics at
the Yokohama meeting.

	In other words, the Names Council is going to be submitting some set of
recommendations to the Board on or around April 20, and then ICANN staff
are then going to draw up a set of draft implementation documents, etc.,
for action at the Yokohama meeting.  Presumably ICANN staff will be
completing the first draft of those documents by about June 20, so that
they can be posted for public comment.

	It seems plain to me that this WG needs to continue its work through April
20, since any additional consensus points we reach before that date may
prove useful to the Names Council when the NC makes its own recommendations
to the Board.  After April 20, frankly, it's not clear to me whether we
have a role — the NC will have made its recommendations, and ICANN staff
will have two months "to prepare . . . draft policies, draft implementation
documents, commentary and statements of issues" for public comment before
the Yokohama meeting.  (I've asked Ken Stubbs for NC guidance on this
point, but I haven't gotten a response.)

	So we need to focus our attention on the next three weeks.  The first
thing I'd like us to take care of is some resolution on the
Sheppard/Kleiman principles,
<http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc01/msg01436.html>.  My understanding
of the function of the principles is that they would be used by the
relevant ICANN body or process to guide its selection of new TLDs or
TLD/registry pairs.  Philip suggested an initial version a while back.  A
variety of folks have voiced objections to the particular principles, and
Philip has made a variety of changes in response (we're now up to version 8).

	It seems to me that there are two questions we have to resolve:

	[1] Is it useful, as a general matter, for us to agree on some meaningful
set of principles to guide the relevant ICANN body or process in selecting
new TLDs or TLD registry/pairs?  It seems to me that, in the context of the
last consensus call, most folks indicated that their answer was YES.
(Presumably folks who urge that registries should select TLDs themselves,
without ICANN involvement, will answer NO to this question.  A majority of
the WG, though, has indicated that it rejects that approach.  From the
other side, folks who urge that the WG should simply select the new TLDs
now, and be done with it, may view the development of a set of principles
as unnecessary.  But I don't view that as a realistic option at this point.)

	[2] Assuming that it would be desirable for the WG to agree on some
meaningful set of principles, is this set the right one?  I can think of
two classes of objections to the current iteration of the principles.  The
first class would consist of arguments that the principles incorporate
undesirable policy choices.  The second class would consist of arguments
that the principles are too general, and won't meaningfully guide (much
less constrain) the decisionmaker.  (These issues are related, in that any
softening of the principles in response to objections in category 1 may
exacerbate objections in category 2.)

	I'd like us to return to this matter, and reach some resolution, so that
we can report to the NC well in advance of April 20 that we either do or
don't endorse a version of these principles.  To that end, I'd like people
who have something to contribute on these issues to speak up now, so that
we can figure out where we stand

	On a completely separate matter: One of the NC members has asked for a
short, user- friendly summary of the various models for deploying and
implementing new gTLDs that folks described in their position papers.  I'd
be grateful if each of the position-paper authors could send me a short
summary (no more than a paragraph or two) of the scenario for deploying new
gTLDs contemplated in that author's position paper, so that I can collate
them and transmit the resulting short paper to the NC.

	Thanks.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, WG-C
weinberg@msen.com