[wg-c] re: Choosing the intial testbed

[Kendall Dawson <kendall@motif1.obs-us.com>]

I agree that it should be decentralized - but not in the exact way that James has proposed.

My person feeling is that the general public should choose the TLDs/registry by a vote. It seems the only democratic way to do this. Rather than telling people -- "here are the 10 choices" why not have a Net-wide Web poll (sponsored by DNSO) to decide this matter? 

This way ICANN gets the general public involved, the business/commercial interest does not get to make the choice for the public - and no one can come back later complaining - "we weren't offered any choice".

This method could be used whether the registries are chosen first, or the TLD strings are chosen first. If the registries are asked to apply first - we offer a list of say 100 registries and the string they propose to run. The public then votes on these - and the top 10 are implemented.

If we go the other route - and the TLD strings are chosen first - we put up a list of 100 strings. The public votes on which ones they want. The top 10 are chosen. Then, the registries bid on who will run them.

I know that Paul already has a poll going over at Name-Space. But, this is not "officially sanctioned" by DNSO. If ICANN were to offer something similar to this as an "official" poll that will used to gauge the interests of the public -- we could avoid a lot of the back-and-forth fighting of which ones to add.

Just my opinion.

Kendall


On 22-Mar-2000 James Love wrote:
---------------------------
 > I propose the decision making be decentralized.  I would recommend 3 be
 > selected by the business/registrar constituencies, 3 by the
 > non-commercial domain holders, and 3 selected by the ICANN at large
 > members, in an online vote.  That's 9, and the 10th could be selected in
 > some other way.  Perhaps a lottery by those with "pioneer" proposals, or
 > something else.  This would provide a simple way to reduce the power
 > that any one group would have, and it would probably also lead to some
 > diversity in the types of management structures considered in the first
 > round.