RE: [wg-c] STRAW POLL

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> WG-C STRAW POLL
>
> Please respond before midnight UTC following February 21, 2000.
>
>
> QUESTION ONE
> 	Please select from the following possibilities, *as applied to the
> deployment of new gTLDs in the name space over the medium to long term*:

Although I have some complaint with the way this answer is worded, here it
is;

> 1. All new gTLDs must have charters that meaningfully limit the
> universe of
> people who can register in those gTLDs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> QUESTION TWO
> 	The working group has reached and reaffirmed a
> recommendation that the
> initial expansion of the name space should consist of six to ten
> new gTLDs,
> followed by an evaluation period.  Please select from the following
> possibilities, *as applied to that initial rollout*.

Did I state that I had problems with the way these were worded?

> 4. ICANN should simply select new registries and leave issues of names and
> charters (including whether to limit the universe of people who can
> register in the domain, and if so how) to the new registries.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

> QUESTION THREE
> 	The issue of chartered gTLDs is tied up with the larger
> issue of how ICANN
> should select new gTLDs -- in particular, whether (a) ICANN itself should
> be the final arbiter of new gTLDs' names and charters, or (b) ICANN should
> simply select new registries and leave the choice of names and charters to
> them.  I think that at this point we can't avoid confronting the larger
> question of how ICANN should pick new TLDs in the initial rollout.
> (Actually, we're returning to the question; part of last summer's straw
> poll spoke to the same issue.  The results then were
> inconclusive.)  Please
> select from among these possibilities:

> 6. Other (please explain).

http://www.dnso.net/library/dnso-tld.mhsc-position.shtml