RE: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT

[Andrew Dalgleish <andrewd@axonet.com.au>]

> PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE	
> 
> 	The initial rollout should include a range of top level domains,
> from open
> TLDs to restricted TLDs with more limited scope.
> 
[Andrew Dalgleish]  

NO.
I think the initial rollout should not include restricted domains as
this will reduce the number of open domains available.
I think restricted domains are required, but not in the initial 6-10.


> PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO
> 
> 	Criteria for assessing a gTLD application, subject to current
> technical
> constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should be based on
> all of
> the following principles :
> 
> 1. Meaning: An application for a TLD should explain the significance
> of the
> proposed TLD string, and how the applicant contemplates that the new
> TLD
> will be perceived by the relevant population of net users.  The
> application
> may contemplate that the proposed TLD string will have its primary
> semantic
> meaning in a language other than English.
> 
> 2. Enforcement: An application for a TLD should explain the mechanism
> for
> charter enforcement where relevant and desired.
> 
> 3. Differentiation: The selection of a TLD string should not confuse
> net
> users, and so TLDs should be clearly differentiated by the string
> and/or by
> the marketing and functionality associated with the string.
> 
> 4. Diversity: New TLDs are important to meet the needs of an expanding
> Internet community.  They should serve both commercial and
> non-commercial
> goals.
> 
> 5. Honesty: A TLD should not unnecessarily increase opportunities for
> malicious or criminal elements who wish to defraud net users.
> 
> 6. Competition: The authorization process for new TLDs should not be
> used
> as a means of protecting existing service providers from competition.
[Andrew Dalgleish]  

YES.



> PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE
> 
> 	WG-C recommends that the Names Council charter a working group
> to develop
> policy regarding internationalized domain names using non-ASCII
> characters.
[Andrew Dalgleish]  

NO.
I think this should be an IETF issue.