Re: [registrars] Clarification on Working Group C Vote; [wg-c] IMPORTANT: CONSENSUS CALL

["Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>]

At 15:10 13-12-1999 -0500, Michael D. Palage wrote:
>Just a minor clarification with regard to the following comment submitted
>last week by Bob Connelly.

Dear Michael:

Yes, your timing was unfortunate and made it appear that you were leading 
the pack.  I have a good idea of your thinking on these matters and was 
surprised at your statement of rationale (quoted below) was rather short.

As a practical matter, I think it is very likely that there will need to be 
a "testbed" period for the first of the 6-10 new gTLDs, which may not 
differ significantly from your view.

I repeat my frequent requests to be a member of wg-b.  I asked in late 
July, along with proposing that Professor Doi be a member.

Please tell us more about the sunrise period.

Regards, BobC

NO

Reason: Until the safeguards that are being contemplated in Working Group B
are demonstrated to work properly, I do not believe that it would be prudent
to start with more than one commercial gTLD as part of a testbed phase.

Michael D. Palage
Co-Chair Working Group B