[ga] RE: [wg-b] RE: [wg-c] URGENT: Moratorium on all additions to con

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

Aha! My chance to turn the tables at last! Marketing is always telling me
that a scope enhancement must *only* be a simple matter of programming
(SMOP) and therefore deserves no increased budget. Now here is my chance to
tell them that is is *only* a simple matter of marketing (SMOM) and deserves
no additional consideration.<grin>

Seriously Marilyn,what we are discussing here is not rocket science. At
best, we are talking about a few DNS tricks that are well within the current
scope of the average hostmaster. In this case, the hostmasters are the
operational SMEs (subject matter experts). At the business-technical level,
the SMEs are the system and platform architects. Those of us who actively
practice that profession are quite well aware of the relevant issues and are
reporting them to the executive management levels of our clients. That is,
after all, our value proposition to the client. With regards to the the
education of the end-user, that is the registry's responsibility, such as
NSI has done with CNO (Com/Net/Org).

What you seem to be stating is that the entire Internet population needs to
be educated about gTLDs before we can have more gTLDs. Were that the case
with the Internet in general, we would never have had an Internet and most
of the general Internet population *still* doesn't understand how it works.
Most of them consider it to be PFM (pure farging magic) and just use what
they are interested in.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-b@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-b@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 1999 10:09 PM
> To: 'William X. Walsh'
> Cc: tom.bliley@mail.house.gov; quaynor@ghana.com;
> apisan@servidor.unam.mx; edyson@edventure.com; eric.menge@sba.gov;
> apincus@doc.gov; bburr@ntia.doc.gov; amadeu@nominalia.com;
> announce@dnso.org; wg-b@dnso.org; wg-c@dnso.org; ga@dnso.org; matt
> hooker; rmeyer@mhsc.com
> Subject: RE: [wg-b] RE: [wg-c] URGENT: Moratorium on all additions to
> con
>
>
> William, I think you know, but perhaps not, that AT&T has
> been involved
> since the initial ideas of the POC/CORE; green paper, etc.  So, we've
> invested time and resources for a few years... like you and others...
>
> We still believe, however, that we need to recognize that
> this working group
> will continue to have new players join in and the process of
> the working
> groups is supposed to be able to accommodate that.
>
> I understand that you believe this process has been long.
> And, perhaps it
> has. But as I said in my comments about the NSI contract,
> competition isn't
> built in a day.  Successh and stability have to be the goals,
> even if it
> takes more time.
>
> Certainly, talking and speculating about new gTLDs has gone
> on for some
> time. But a critical analysis of how small businesses would
> be educated and
> made aware of any new gTLDs, along with ISPs and other intermediaries,
> hasn't been discussed on any group I've participated in.  I
> believe that
> Eric Menge, of the SBA, at the L.A. meeting noted the issues
> of ensuring SME
> awareness as a critical factor.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:william@dso.net]
> Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 12:26 AM
> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Cc: tom.bliley@mail.house.gov; quaynor@ghana.com;
> apisan@servidor.unam.mx; edyson@edventure.com; eric.menge@sba.gov;
> apincus@doc.gov; bburr@ntia.doc.gov; amadeu@nominalia.com;
> announce@dnso.org; wg-b@dnso.org; wg-c@dnso.org; ga@dnso.org; matt
> hooker; rmeyer@mhsc.com
> Subject: RE: [wg-b] RE: [wg-c] URGENT: Moratorium on all additions to
> con
>
>
>
> On 22-Nov-99 Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> > Roeland and others,
> >
> > I know that some believe that we should move forward quickly with
> > multiple
> > gTLDs. Not everyone agrees, as you know.  And, one area
> where I believe
> > there is some support for Matt is the point thatmore
> examination of the
> > implications of introducing new gTLDs and the impact on ccTLDs is
> > needed.
> >
> > My earlier postings called for a very go slow approach
> overall and more
> > thought about implications.  I don't believe that there has
> been serious
> > analysis of the impact of new gTLDS on consumer confusion
> and ISPs, for
> > instance.
> >
> > We could spend some time productively having an informed
> discussion on
> > these
> > issues and others.
> >
> > We will continue to have new players in the working groups. Welcome,
> > Matt.
> > And others who are joining. We still have a lot of work to
> do together.
> >
>
> Where have you and AT&T been Marilyn?  This has been a LONG
> and arduous
> process that has been through MANY different levels of review and
> discussion.  You make it sound like this is something new
> that is being
> rushed into place, and it is far from it.  Many of us have been
> participating in the process that led to this point for many
> years now.
>
> To imply that this has been a rushed process is rather amusing  :)
>
> --
> William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
> Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934
>