From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #28 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Monday, March 6 2000 Volume 01 : Number 028 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 15:27:50 -0800 (PST) From: Karl Auerbach Subject: Re: [wg-c] voting on TLDs > Please note that the White Paper places stability of the Internet above > all other concerns. I have yet to see any technical or policy basis to have any belief whatsoever that additional TLDs, even thousands of them, will have any impact on the "stability of the Internet". I would suggest that that further delay in adding new TLDs will only increase the pressure for people to take action outside the ICANN context, as is already occuring in China and elsewhere, to create a distinct DNS name space that cares naught for anything that the DNSO or ICANN may say or do. And if one believes the IAB's statement on competitive roots, then one ought to consider that the refusal to quickly add new TLDs is the true cause of concern for stability. --karl-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 18:29:07 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] non-consensus call In my message last Tuesday, I also stated that I would issue a consensus call on the issue of open vs. restricted TLDs. There was a strong majority in the straw poll in favor of the proposition that the process should have room for *both* limited-purpose TLDs (which have a charter that meaningfully limits who can register there) and general-purpose TLDs (which have an "open" charter that does not significantly restrict registration in that TLD, or, perhaps, have no charter at all). On second thought, though, it seems to me that this issue is intimately connected with our ongoing discussions about the 8 principles that Philip has proposed and redrafted. I suspect that it would make sense to hold back a consensus call on this issue until we're closer to closure, on way or another, on those discussions. So my inclination is to wait a bit on this consensus call; if anybody thinks that's mistaken, please let me know. Jon Jonathan Weinberg co-chair, WG-C weinberg@msen.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 18:28:52 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALL -- selecting the gTLDs in the initial rollout This is the first of the two consensus calls that I mentioned in the message I sent last Tuesday. In our recent straw poll, there was a strong majority in favor of the proposition that ICANN should play some part in choosing the new gTLDs. There was also a majority in favor of the proposition that the initiative, in selecting the new gTLDs, should come from the registries themselves. These results -- if they accurately reflect perceptions within the working group -- suggest the only approach with a chance of winning rough consensus in the WG for selecting the gTLDs in the initial rollout is the one recently urged by Sheppard and Mueller: 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. I'm putting that plan forward as a consensus call, and I strongly urge all of you to support it. I'm not making that call because I think this is the overwhelming best result on the merits (though I think it's a pretty good one). The is the compromise middle ground between those who would have registries choose gTLD names and charters without ICANN involvement, and those who would have ICANN choose gTLD names and charters before soliciting applications from registries. The straw vote suggests that if we are to reach any form of compromise rough consensus on this issue, this proposal is how we will do so. As with the 6-10 compromise proposal, we need to reach compromise — we need to wrap this process up — and I think this proposal is the ground on which we can do so. Otherwise we'll stay stalled. I'm limiting this consensus call to selecting the gTLDs *for the initial rollout*, and leaving open how gTLDs might be selected in the longer term. It may be that in the long run, we'd have other approaches. But if we can reach compromise on this narrow issue for the initial rollout, then we can move forward towards actual deployment of new gTLDs in our lifetimes. Please send in a message, under this subject heading, by midnight UTC on March 19 indicating whether you support or oppose the proposed compromise position. Thanks. Jon Jon Weinberg co-chair, WG-C weinberg@msen.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 16:51:59 -0700 From: katie@imt.net Subject: Re: [wg-c] CPT/EI letter on TLDs 3/5/00 su 4:41 pm mst Welcome Jamie, i want to thank you for sharing your letter to Dyson with the wg-c. i am certain your intent in the letter is perfectly sincere and of course extremely correct. However, due to my cynical opinion of icann, i found your letter to Dyson to be wonderfully droll. please be sure to post her response, if any. katie. Kathryn Vestal, Esq. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 12:06 PM 3/5/00 -0800, you wrote: >Hello, this is my first post to wg-c. I work with various non-profit >organizations that would like to apply for new TLDs. This is a letter I >wrote to Esther Dyson about this. It is my understanding that WG-B and >WG-C are working on this issue. Jamie Love > >http://www.cptech.org/ecom/icann/tlds-march1-2000.html > > John Richard > Essential Information > P.O. Box 19405 > Washington, DC 20036 > http://www.essential.org > > James Love > Consumer Project on Technology > P.O. Box 19367 > Washington, DC 20036 > http://www.essential.org > >March 1, 2000 > >Esther Dyson >Chair >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 >Marina del Rey, CA 90292 USA > >Dear Esther: > >This letter is to propose that Essential Information be permitted >to establish a registry for new top level domains (TLDs). It is >our intention to create several TLDs that would facilitate free >speech and criticism, and enable consumers, workers and others to >organize. Each of these TLDs will be operated under its own >management charter. The particular TLDs that we propose >include: > > .union > .customers > .complaints > .sucks > .ecology > .isnotgreen > .isnotfair > .shareholder > .taxpayer > .unite > >Our plans for each domain are as follows: > > .union > >The .union TLD will be a "union label" for cyberspace. EI is >working with the international labor union community to develop a >management system for .union. Use of the domain would be >restricted to bona fide labor unions. Examples of use of this >TLD would include: > > nike.union > exxon.union > microsoft.union > >as well as other uses, such as dcprinters.union, for links to >union printers in Washington, DC. EI will be holding meetings >with members of the labor community to discuss the policies for >the management of this domain. It is our goal to use the .union >domain to strengthen union organizing efforts, and to make it >easier for workers at a firm to communicate with unions that >represent workers at the firm, or who are seeking to organize >workers at the firm, and for unions in different countries to >coordinate efforts with each other. > > .customers > >EI will create a self governance management organization for >.customers. This domain will be used to create democratically >managed membership organizations of the customers of particular >companies. The customer organizations would be able to address >any number of consumer problems. For example, ford.customers >might organize to address safety, service or warranty issues on >Ford automobiles. Safeway.customers might organize in favor of >labeling of genetically modified foods. Bellatlantic.customers >might address Bell Altantic service and pricing issues in >regulatory proceedings. Bankofamerica.customers could address >ATM charges and other bank fees. > >The .customers domain will be a cyberspace version of the >"Citizens Utilities Boards" that were set up in several US states >in the 1970s, funded by voluntary contributions from customers of >public utilities. > > .complaints > >EI is studying different models for the use of .complaints, to >give consumers specific information about mechanisms to address >product or company specific complaints, and to permit customers >to share information about company practices with each other. > > .sucks > >This TLD will be used to facilitate criticism of a firm or >organization, such as aol.sucks, wipo.sucks, or even >greenpeace.sucks. We would not permit the organization that >owned an associated domain to also own .sucks, so it would expand >the name space in an important way. The domain would also be >available for other uses, such as work.sucks, life.sucks or >television.sucks. > >Our plan is to create an independent non-profit free speech >foundation that will be funded by fees from the .sucks >registration. The Dot Sucks Foundation (http://dot.sucks) will >fund Internet related free speech fights. > >We recognize the .sucks TLD will be offensive to some persons, >but we do not think that this should exclude .sucks from being >approved by ICANN. We believe the .sucks domain will be popular >in the marketplace, and also generate important funding for the >free speech rights of individuals and small organizations. > > .ecology > .isnotgreen > >These two TLDs will be managed by environmental groups, to create >forums to discuss and criticize the environmental policies of >businesses, governments and other organizations. > > .isnotfair > >This TLD would be used by civil rights groups to discuss issues >of discrimination or workers rights. We will be holding >discussions with a variety of civil rights organizations to >determine the management structure for the TLD. It is our >intention to create a space where the public can quickly review a >company's record on employment practices. For example, >Texaco.isnotfair or coke.isnotfair might have links to >information about discrimination suits involving these companies, >or to organizations working on various discrimination or fairness >issues. > > .shareholder > >This TLD will be used by church groups who organize shareholder >suits on issues of conscience. > > .taxpayers > >The .taxpayer TLD would be given to democratically elected >taxpayer organizations that would monitor budgets and management >practices of governments. Examples of this TLD would include >Arlington.VA.Taxpayers, Anchorage.AK.Taxpayers, >London.UK.Taxpayers, Sidney.AU.Taxpayers. > > .unite > >EI is evaluating different models for the use of .unite. > >These are serious proposals to use the power of a TLD to enable >citizens to improve civil society. We believe the creation of >domains like .union, .customers, .isnotgreen, and .isnotfair will >create powerful mechanisms to share information and organize. > >We would like to meet with the ICANN staff to discuss these >proposals further. > >Sincerely, > > >John Richard James Love >Director Director >Essential Information Consumer Project on Technology > > > >-- >======================================================= >James Love, Director | http://www.cptech.org >Consumer Project on Technology | mailto:love@cptech.org >P.O. Box 19367 | voice: 1.202.387.8030 >Washington, DC 20036 | fax: 1.202.234.5176 >======================================================= > > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 16:15:19 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] voting on TLDs At 03:27 PM 3/5/2000 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote: >I have yet to see any technical or policy basis to have any belief >whatsoever that additional TLDs, even thousands of them, will have any >impact on the "stability of the Internet". Karl, You might not like the analyses or concerns that have been raised, but they have been raised repeatedly. You have seen them and you have responded to them. Administrative instability is just as bad -- actually much worse -- as crashing machines. We have no evidence that a flood of new, inexperienced registry administrators will provide stable service. Quite the opposite. That does not mean refraining from adding TLD (registries). It means adding them judiciously. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 20:22:59 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Re: [wg-c] CPT/EI letter on TLDs At 04:51 PM 3/5/00 -0700, katie@imt.net wrote: >Welcome Jamie, >i want to thank you for sharing your letter to Dyson with the wg-c. >i am certain your intent in the letter is perfectly sincere and of course >extremely correct. However, due to my cynical opinion of icann, i found >your letter to Dyson to be wonderfully droll. >please be sure to post her response, if any. > >katie. >Kathryn Vestal, Esq. This is what Esther Dyson wrote to Dave Farber, after he disseminated Jamie's letter under the subject heading "What is ICANN, really? (a test coming up)": >To: farber@cis.upenn.edu >From: edyson@edventure.com (Esther Dyson) > >There is no test for some time, because first we (ICANN as an extended >organization and then its board in ratifying consensus) have to figure out >whether and how there should be new gTLDs at all. So this first test is >simply whether we follow our own rules and move forward with creating a >general policy, or whether we could be swayed by political-correctness >arguments into doing something arbitrary. > >esther Jon ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 18:35:08 -0800 From: Justin McCarthy Subject: [wg-c] "process" Thank you Bob Broxton. In the weeks that I've been closely following the wg-c debate, it's become apparent to me that this forum is really the furthest thing from a genuine debate. It's clear to me that the powers that be want what they want and anybody that has a dissenting view is harshly criticized and labeled anti progress. The usual suspects keep referring to their seat of ethos as being derived from a majority vote early on--they now have a mandate to do what they see fit, even though the group of participants is now much larger than it was early on. The time constraints now seem to be dictating not only the degree of democracy in arriving at the "groups" findings, but also the substance of those findings. The cards were stacked before this project began. Sincerely, Justin McCarthy ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 21:08:12 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Re: [wg-c] "process" At 06:35 PM 3/5/00 -0800, Justin McCarthy wrote: >Thank you Bob Broxton. In the weeks that I've been closely >following the wg-c debate, it's become apparent to me that >this forum is really the furthest thing from a genuine >debate. It's clear to me that the powers that be want what >they want and anybody that has a dissenting view is harshly >criticized and labeled anti progress. The usual suspects >keep referring to their seat of ethos as being derived from >a majority vote early on--they now have a mandate to do what >they see fit, even though the group of participants is now >much larger than it was early on. The time constraints now >seem to be dictating not only the degree of democracy in >arriving at the "groups" findings, but also the substance of >those findings. The cards were stacked before this project >began. I think Mr. McCarthy is responding to a message that I sent him two weeks ago, when he first joined WG-C. For background, I've pasted the text of that message below. I think its gist -- that for a working group to make progress, it can't reopen settled issues every time a new person decides to join the group, even if the new person disagrees -- is crucial for any WG. Jon >>>> Justin -- This is an interesting debate, but one which we've argued to death on WG-C. The consensus of the working group was that we *should* have new gTLDs, and that your view that the "(perceived) shortage of internet names" is mythical is simply wrong. At some point, in order to have progress within a working group, we need to treat issues as settled and move on; this is one of them. To argue otherwise, you should have been here last summer. Jon Jonathan Weinberg co-chair, WG-C weinberg@msen.com <<<<<<<< ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 18:33:54 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] "process" - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 06-Mar-2000 Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > I think Mr. McCarthy is responding to a message that I sent him two > weeks ago, when he first joined WG-C. For background, I've pasted the > text of that message below. I think its gist -- that for a working group > to make progress, it can't reopen settled issues every time a new person > decides to join the group, even if the new person disagrees -- is crucial > for any WG. Absolutely agreed, and am glad someone posted this response. Newcomers are always welcome, of course, but they can't expect us to revisit every issue they are interested in just because they weren't here when the issue was covered. This workgroup has had over 8 months to get to where it is now, and it really is not the fault of those who have been here that long that the newcomers are only now getting involved. Progress should not be stopped short to accomodate them. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (GNU/Linux) Comment: DSo Networks iD8DBQE4wxkS8zLmV94Pz+IRAoFBAKDzcZ097JpG1hhpKtXQEkuYa6drKgCg03tO QUdM38wsvh+5sZ3FxTvhH/4= =oz6r - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 21:39:57 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" Subject: Re: [wg-c] voting on TLDs On Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 04:15:19PM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote: > At 03:27 PM 3/5/2000 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > >I have yet to see any technical or policy basis to have any belief > >whatsoever that additional TLDs, even thousands of them, will have any > >impact on the "stability of the Internet". > > Karl, > > You might not like the analyses or concerns that have been raised, but they > have been raised repeatedly. You have seen them and you have responded to > them. > > Administrative instability is just as bad -- actually much worse -- as > crashing machines. We have no evidence that a flood of new, inexperienced > registry administrators will provide stable service. Quite the opposite. That's odd. Until someone went and got Paul Vixie to state that adding a large number of new TLDs would pose no technical problem, the arguments here were about instability rooted in technical issues. Now that that argument is untenable, it's shifted to the unprovable claim that adding new registries will break things. You say that we have no evidence that a flood of new, inexperienced registry admins will provide stable service. Well, we have no evidence to the contrary. We do, however, have more than ample proof that administrative instability has not damaged the Internet. If you need any examples, witness the bulk of current and past registrars. Look at NSI. The net routes around trouble; it doesn't come crashing down around our ears just because somebody can't run their business properly. If you want to make an argument that the stability of the Internet would suffer dearly in the face of administrative incompetence, then you should acknowledge that the Internet has been dead for many years now, and DNS was stillborn. If you want to make that argument, then ICANN is jumping up and down on its grave. - -- Mark C. Langston mark@bitshift.org Systems & Network Admin San Jose, CA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 01:12:43 -0500 From: "Milton Mueller" Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALL -- selecting the gTLDs in the initial rollout I support the statement below, for the initial tranche of new TLDs. m i l t o n m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u syracuse university http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/ - ----- Original Message ----- 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. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 01:16:58 -0500 From: "Milton Mueller" Subject: Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: DRAFT WG-C REPORT - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Weinberg" > 3. My reasoning, in asking that separate statements be supported by five > votes, was that in a large WG there might be many people who held views > that have essentially no support from anyone else, and that it would > constitute not-very-informative clutter if we ended up with a lot of > separate statements, none of them representing a view with significant > support. But I don't feel strongly about this, I do feel strongly about this. The report is not a position paper or a decisive document, it is just a report, and a pretty objective one, about where our discussions have gone. Anyone who thinks Jon got it so wrong that a dissent needs to be written had better be able to muster five signatures. > 4. I'd like to hear what other people think on this. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 23:27:40 -0800 From: Justin McCarthy Subject: [wg-c] vote? Gentlemen, Agreed. It would be absolutely ridiculous to revisit every issue every time a neophyte chimed in. Progress should definitely not be stopped short. But, if a Co-Chairman can issue a report for a group without the approval of the report by the group, why have members of the group? Doesn't the very name "Group Report" imply (perhaps falsely) broad group support? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 22:25:11 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] voting on TLDs At 09:39 PM 3/5/2000 -0800, Mark C. Langston wrote: >That's odd. Until someone went and got Paul Vixie to state that >adding a large number of new TLDs would pose no technical problem, the >arguments here were about instability rooted in technical issues. >Now that that argument is untenable, it's shifted to the unprovable >claim that adding new registries will break things. Your assessment of history is thoroughly inaccurate. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 22:27:30 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: [wg-c] voting on TLDs At 09:39 PM 3/5/2000 -0800, Mark C. Langston wrote: >That's odd. Until someone went and got Paul Vixie to state that >adding a large number of new TLDs would pose no technical problem, the >arguments here were about instability rooted in technical issues. >Now that that argument is untenable, it's shifted to the unprovable >claim that adding new registries will break things. Your assessment of history is thoroughly inaccurate. >You say that we have no evidence that a flood of new, inexperienced >registry admins will provide stable service. Well, we have no >evidence to the contrary. We do, however, have more than ample proof >that administrative instability has not damaged the Internet. If you >need any examples, witness the bulk of current and past registrars. >Look at NSI. The net routes around trouble; it doesn't come crashing Indeed, please DO look at NSI. Their history ain't nearly as wonderful as you seem to believe. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 05:25:12 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] vote? - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 06-Mar-2000 Justin McCarthy wrote: > Gentlemen, > Agreed. It would be absolutely ridiculous to revisit every > issue every time a neophyte chimed in. Progress should > definitely not be stopped short. But, if a Co-Chairman can > issue a report for a group without the approval of the > report by the group, why have members of the group? Doesn't > the very name "Group Report" imply (perhaps falsely) broad > group support? The report is nothing more than summary of the issues that the group has already developed at least a rough consensus behind, either by list polls conducted in the past or by there being a general sense that opposition to a point was nearly non-existant. It was posted to see if the list members could find any areas where he grossly mischaracterized or misstated our existing findings. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE4w7G48zLmV94Pz+IRAoE3AKDAVYEgcDtZa6WZORJ9qWVUulsjgACgvaxX CyF1TBIlh6z3D8qfIVIUYjs= =cpMs - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 05:29:59 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] voting on TLDs - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 06-Mar-2000 Dave Crocker wrote: > At 09:39 PM 3/5/2000 -0800, Mark C. Langston wrote: >>That's odd. Until someone went and got Paul Vixie to state that >>adding a large number of new TLDs would pose no technical problem, the >>arguments here were about instability rooted in technical issues. >>Now that that argument is untenable, it's shifted to the unprovable >>claim that adding new registries will break things. > > Your assessment of history is thoroughly inaccurate. No, it's not. But a nice way to try and dismiss it without refuting it. He is spot on, Dave. > >>You say that we have no evidence that a flood of new, inexperienced >>registry admins will provide stable service. Well, we have no >>evidence to the contrary. We do, however, have more than ample proof >>that administrative instability has not damaged the Internet. If you >>need any examples, witness the bulk of current and past registrars. >>Look at NSI. The net routes around trouble; it doesn't come crashing > > Indeed, please DO look at NSI. Their history ain't nearly as wonderful as > you seem to believe. I think that is exactly what he meant, the net has not destabilized. There are currently over 240 registries operating, and with various types of management models and with a lot of variance in their operating structure. There have been problems that have resulted in entire TLDs not being able to be resolved for several hours. But the net has not destabilized. Indeed, they were minor inconvienances, and lessons learned the hard way. In nearly every case, these problems resulted in a change in operations to make sure it never happened again. The fact is that you have no evidence to support your position, and you've been called on it before as well. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE4w7LX8zLmV94Pz+IRAvuCAKD7UlokQKtEghYTspxwtSxKq2l5UgCfWmfS lV24ilq5D1UXaJHYIgGiqlQ= =Puyt - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 08:39:52 -0500 From: "Kevin J. Connolly" Subject: Re: [wg-c] non-consensus call First, I believe it is a mistake to assume that every chartered TLD immediately implies restrictions on who may register SLDs in that TLD. The concept of prior restrictions does several things to the business model of the registry and or registrars (and none of them are good). There is a different paradigm for "chartered" TLDs, one which carries strong implications about the content of the domains delegated under them without imposing prior restraints. Under this paradigm, anyone can register anything under a chartered TLD, but abusive registrations are subject to cancellation at the behest of any interested party. To return to my tired and tiring example (but I have yet to find one which makes the distinction as clear) assume that .family is created as a chartered TLD for information about families. The charter does not require production of a birth certificate or other proof of identity as a condition precedent to registration; but if mcdonalds.family were used to disparage the famous brand of hamburgers, the registration would not have a scintilla of protection. By the same token, the registration by a member of that ilk of Scotsmen, and its use as a cybergathering place for that family, would not be subject to cancellation. It would be up to the proposer/registry of .family whether several thousands of SLDs registered by Name.Profit.Com (and offered at exorbitant pricing to family members) would be cancellable or safe. Second, and most importantly, now that Kathy has made clear that the eight principles are entirely optional, and are intended for adoption or rejection by registries as they see fit, I believe that further discussion of or based upon the Eight Principles should come to a screeching halt in this WG. Since the election to use the principles or not is reserved to each registry, I believe it is beyond our bailiwick. Kevin J. Connolly >>> Jonathan Weinberg 03/05/00 06:29PM >>> In my message last Tuesday, I also stated that I would issue a consensus call on the issue of open vs. restricted TLDs. There was a strong majority in the straw poll in favor of the proposition that the process should have room for *both* limited-purpose TLDs (which have a charter that meaningfully limits who can register there) and general-purpose TLDs (which have an "open" charter that does not significantly restrict registration in that TLD, or, perhaps, have no charter at all). On second thought, though, it seems to me that this issue is intimately connected with our ongoing discussions about the 8 principles that Philip has proposed and redrafted. I suspect that it would make sense to hold back a consensus call on this issue until we're closer to closure, on way or another, on those discussions. So my inclination is to wait a bit on this consensus call; if anybody thinks that's mistaken, please let me know. Jon Jonathan Weinberg co-chair, WG-C weinberg@msen.com ********************************************************************** The information contained in this electronic message is confidential and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections, and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com- munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi- cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 08:40:55 -0500 From: "Kevin J. Connolly" Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALL -- selecting the gTLDs in the initial rollout I Support this Proposal. ********************************************************************** The information contained in this electronic message is confidential and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections, and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com- munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi- cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 09:59:05 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] Re: vote? I've been having some off-line discussions with Bob Broxton about this, conveying my own thoughts that before the document can be presented as the report of the WG, the working group must express its assent to it -- but that that assent doesn't have to be expressed in a vote. Rather, it seems to me that the near-total absence of *any* statement in our discussions that the document is unfaithful to our consensus, expresses pretty well the group's assent. In WG-C, we've used voting a lot when the list-based discussion has shown that there's disagreement within the group, but it's not clear from the discussion how numerous the forces are on each side. This situation, though, seems different: Where the group's had the opportunity for discussion and there doesn't seem to *be* any disagreement with the contents of the document, I'm not sure that we need to ratify that with a vote. Further, FWIW, I think it would be valuable to the NC to get at least a partial report from us at this stage of the process -- we've been at this an awfully long time. That said, I really want to know what others think. Not many people have spoken to this, and those who have have been roughly divided: Bob, Kent, Bill and Mr. McCarthy have indicated that it would not be appropriate to call this a "wg-c report"; Milton, Rod and William (and I) have indicated the other view. I'm happy to go along with the general sense of the group on this one, whatever it is. So let me know. Jon Jonathan Weinberg co-chair, WG-C weinberg@msen.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 07:55:31 -0800 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] non-consensus call On Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 08:39:52AM -0500, Kevin J. Connolly wrote: > There is a different paradigm for "chartered" TLDs, one which > carries strong implications about the content of the domains > delegated under them without imposing prior restraints. > Under this paradigm, anyone can register anything under a > chartered TLD, but abusive registrations are subject to cancellation > at the behest of any interested party. Yes, precisely as the UDRP is supposed to work. No cost to registries/registrars. [...] > Second, and most importantly, now that Kathy has made clear that > the eight principles are entirely optional, and are intended for adoption > or rejection by registries as they see fit, I believe that further discussion > of or based upon the Eight Principles should come to a screeching halt > in this WG. Since the election to use the principles or not is reserved to > each registry, I believe it is beyond our bailiwick. You are kind. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 08:25:20 -0800 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] voting on TLDs On Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 09:39:57PM -0800, Mark C. Langston wrote: [...] > You say that we have no evidence that a flood of new, inexperienced > registry admins will provide stable service. Well, we have no > evidence to the contrary. Actually, we do -- so much so that it is ludicrous to claim otherwise. There is a reason that we speak of "operations experience". There's a reason why people with "operations experience" are highly paid and valued. > We do, however, have more than ample proof > that administrative instability has not damaged the Internet. If you > need any examples, witness the bulk of current and past registrars. > Look at NSI. The net routes around trouble; it doesn't come crashing > down around our ears just because somebody can't run their business > properly. 1) the registrars went through a testbed period. 2) the operation of a registrar is not a part of the network infrastructure, whereas the operation of a registry is. In particular, registrars have no direct access to DNS servers. 3) there have been significant problems associated with the NSI registry. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #28 *************************