Registrars!
You received my earlier message on the need
to say something in WG-C - expansion of domain names. I attach it again with
this message from the Chairman of WG-C. Today end of day is the deadline for
comment.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf
Of
Jonathan Weinberg
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2000 1:09 PM
To:
ga@dnso.org; wg-c@dnso.org
Cc: chicoinc@PeperMartin.com
Subject: [wg-c]
comment deadline for WG-C interim
report
The Names Council
has clarified that comments on the Working Group C
interim report will be
deemed timely so long as they are submitted by close
of business *today*,
Monday, January 10, in the commenter's own time
zone.
Jon
Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair,
WG-C
weinberg@msen.com
This is what I sent to you last
week.
Fellow registrars:
I want you to submit comments in Working
Group C - expansion of domain names. I would like registrars to take 15 minutes
and respond to the call for comments on proposals to expand domain names.
If you do not, the comments list will be skewed towards
those who do not share the concerns or interests of registrars. Domain name
expansion should be high on your list of priorities.
As you are
aware, the deadline for comments on the position papers for expansion of the
gTLDs is end of day January 10, which is next Monday.
The Chairman of
WG-C writes as follows:
"Working Group C has reached rough consensus on
two matters. The first is that there should be new global top-level domains
(gTLDs); the second is that it would be appropriate for ICANN, in expanding the
name space, to begin with a testbed in which it adds six to ten new gTLDs,
followed by an evaluation period.
"Following the recommendation of
Working Group D, we asked members of the working group to prepare a set of
position papers advocating differing views on the issues before the group. Those
position papers do not represent the views of the working group; rather, they
represent the views only of their individual drafters and endorsers. We urge all
interested groups, and all members of the Internet public, to comment on the
position papers."
The place to make comments is
:comments-gtlds@dnso.org
1. Read this note for an explanation
(admittedly incomplete and partial) of what is being proposed.
2. Endorse
position papers A or B if you favour the expansion of domain names with the
minimum interference in the business model of registrars. (I have subscribed to
postion paper B and I recommend that you do this if you do not have time to
devlop your own views).
At the site http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19991023.NCwgc-report.html you
will find a number of position papers.
The first one A, signed by the
Chairman Jonathan Cohen and 11 others, is a reasonable compromise position which
can be supported by those who favour domain name expansion.
The second
one, B, largely drafted by Milton Mueller, is more vigorously
expansionist, and I have signed it along with 11 others. Paper B is concerned
that, unless there is a firm commitment to expansion, having only 6-10 new TLD's
will create a new set of privileged players.
The essence of paper B is
its clarity on the freedom of registrars to develop their own business
models:
"The content of the top-level name space should be driven by
applications submitted by prospective registries. Registries should contract
with registrars on a free market basis, with no pre-ordained pattern.
Competition in the marketplace and user preferences will determine which
approaches succeed. Regulatory and legal remedies to consumer protection
problems that develop should be left to professional regulators in national
governments. ICANN should concentrate exclusively on technical and
administrative coordination of registry operators to ensure stability,
interoperability, and accountability. It should establish basic qualifications
for top-level domain name registries, and these should be confined exclusively
to technical stability and financial responsibility. "
There are
a number of others. The draft by the copyright community was C. The
copyright-ists do not want expansion until all of their concerns are met. They
numbered nine supporters, of some substance.
The next one, D, proposed
five to nine new TLDs, and then no expansion until a process for chartered
registries is created. This group numbers six. The peculiarity of this model is
that the registry would operate as a public resource model. It
says:
"The registry data is is
not owned by the registry, it is subject to privacy limitations, and escrowed in
favor of ICANN in case the TLD must be moved, for failure, mismanagement on the
part of the registry operator, or similar reasons. The data in the registry
should be escrowed under different control from the registry operator, and in
multiple widely dispersed jurisdictions and locations. "
Position
paper E is the work of Eric Brunner, who proposes a chartered TLD for aboriginal
organizations, and whose supporters are actively filling the comments
list:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-gtlds/Archives/index.html
Position
paper F is signed by only Craig Simon, who wishes to treat TLD's as a public
resource, with no intellectual; propert being taken in the records of the
registry. He supports expnasion of 6 -10 TLDs.
Position paper G is signed
by Roeland Meyer. He is an expansionist, but he could well have joined up with
the Mueller paper, B.
Issues for registrars
1. expansion
2.
freedom of the business model
3. who gets to propose the names, ICANN or
the proponents? What role for ICANN?
1. Expansion
There has been a
two-thirds consensus in favour of expansion fom 6-10 TLDs, and I do not think
the copyright community can summon the power to defeat this.
2. Freedom
of the Business Model
There is not yet consensus on the freedom that
registries and registrars will be allowed to pursue a business model. I think
this is an area where the registrars should be speaking and are not.
3.
Role for ICANN in the selection
The registrars also could use the
occasion to propose ways in which ICANN's powers will be constrained to what is
absolutely necessary.
Action required
The registrars should speak,
preferably with one voice, but speak nonetheless to these issues, before January
10.
Send comments to
comments-gtlds@dnso.org
Sincerely,
Timothy Denton, BA,
BCL.
tmdenton.com
Telecom and Internet Issues
37 Heney
Street
Ottawa, Ontario, K1N
5V6
613-789-5397
613-789-5398