Re: Consensus, anyone?

[thomst@netcom.com (Thom Stark)]

Christopher Ambler inquires:

> With all the talk about CORE, and how central registries and depositories
> should work, is it a safe assumption that the shared model has received
> consensus? If not, why is nobody speaking up?

I think that, with a couple of exceptions, most of the members of the
list have come to the conclusion that the shared gTLDs model is what
we'll end up with.

I, personally, favor shared gTLDs.

> What about the 60-day issue? Consensus for or against?

My impression is that a few folks who think the issue of covering the
registrars' butts against being dragged into trademark disputes is
paramount, and that the waiting period will somehow accomplish that, are
firmly in favor of a 60-day wait.  Everybody else seems to me to have
concluded that a 60-day "official" publication period accomplishes much
the same end in a considerably less onerous fashion.

I, personally, am among the second group.

> What about the lottery? Number of participants or no limit? What about the
> gTLDs to be created? Is the fact that the draft calls for only 7 and that
> the IAHC will decide them going to be approved, then, without much more
> comment?

The lottery appears to me to have achieved no consensus.  However, it
seems to me that the suggestion last week that the lottery be modified
so as to include all qualified applicants in a queue, with new additions
to the queue being made at one-month intervals from among the applicants
accumulate that month makes very good sense.  That way, no applicant gets
excluded, except for cause.  The further suggestion that applicants be
permitted to strike private agreements to trade places in line on any
mutually-agreeable basis also seems eminently sensible.

I hope the IAHC's next draft will include both provisions.

I don't see a consensus on the gTLDs to be created, either in terms of
how many should be in the initial group or how the names should be
chosen.  I *do* see a majority forming in favor of functional TLD names
(i.e.--.SEX, .MOVIE, etc.), but, as someone pointed out recently, a
majority and a consensus are not synonymous.

As you know, I favor picking functional names.

I think it's inevitable that the IAHC will pick the first group of names.
I suspect CORE will probably pick any additional ones, although the next
IAHC draft may award that function to some other body.  I seriously 
doubt that the IAHC will pick any but the intial group.

I haven't heard any strong arguments in favor of any specific number 
besides the 7 in the draft.  By default, I suspect that 7 is what we'll
get.

For the record, I personally think that there ought to be 3 gTLDs in the
first group and 3 new registrars chosen.  I think that 3 registrars is
the minimum number needed to usefully determine what the operational
and architectural issues will be to make the new system work, and that,
once those issues have been decided, it ought to be relatively trivial
to scale the system up to accomodate a significantly-larger number of
additional registrars.  Those who are champing at the bit will hate this
suggestion, I suspect, but, in my view, picking the minimum set of new
registrars is likely to permit the technical issues to be solved in the
minimum time.  If I'm correct, then picking the minimum set to begin 
with should actually permit the rest of the applicants to begin operation
sooner, rather than later, despite how counter-intuitive that might seem
at first blush.

> Will the IAHC publish an interim draft based on comment to date? There is
> precious little time left in the public comment phase, an interim draft would
> go a very long way towards demonstratig that public comment is, indeed, being
> taken into account.

Good question.  However, whether the next draft is an interim or the
final one, what will demonstrate the IAHC is taking public comment into
account is the contents of the draft, itself.  In my opinion, an interim
draft would mostly have the effect of demonstrating how the public 
comment *thus far* has affected the IAHC's own consensus on what the
shape of the final draft will be.  It would also, of course, act as a
second "stake in the ground" toward a final draft.

I'd like to see the IAHC issue an interim draft, but I can certainly see
the arguments some members are likely to raise against the idea.  In
particular, given the amount of work involved, I'm sure the IAHC members
aren't eager to have certain of the list members begin flaming them all
over again.  I preach the gospel of tolerance and circumspection, but I
try to keep in mind that the IAHC folks are human..and that nobody in
their right mind actively seeks out new opportunities to be insulted,
reviled and disparaged.

Hmm..wait a minute, strike that.  Make it, instead, "nobody in their
right mind actively seeks out new opportunities to be insulted, reviled
and disparaged *outside of a sexual context*."  After all, I *am writing
from the San Francisco area..

;->

Regards,

Thom Stark

Email:  thomst@netcom.com              URL:  http://www.dnai.com/~thomst
             finger thomst@netcom.com for my PGP Public Key

(510) 526-9600 voice       STARK  REALITIES           fax (510) 526-9063
POB 457                     El Cerrito, CA                ZIP 94530-0457