RE: [wg-c] Next question: Which gTLDs? How many?

[Ivan Pope <ivan@netnames.com>]

>I really can't see the point of having a 
> working group if input
> >is ignored and we default to a reflex position.
> 
> Nobody has objected to you leading a discussion in the 
> direction that you
> want, why do you object to others leading other discussions?
> 
> Asking the question that agree with the model you want does 
> not mean that
> others cannot work in other directions, which are probably 
> more open and
> further in agreement with the desires of the community, not 
> only of those
> who see the DNS as a business.

OK, fair point. But I would encourage us to discuss the structure and
concept of a system of creating new gTLDs rather than jump back to what with
the best will in the world is an arbitary and untested system.
Sure, there may well not be much wrong with the CORE/POC structure and gTLDs
or there may be, but if we don't come up with a logical and understandable
structure which allows us to understand this, where does it leave us?
Personally, I hoped we would step back from previous positions and try to
learn from the past. 
I think I have some rights to be heard here. I am a founder and Director of
Nominet in the UK which is now struggling with some of the effects of
success and also starting to search for a vision and worldview that will
take Nominet into the next few years. 
This will entail listening to the commercial and political communities and
finding out a way forward that works and is flexible enough to last.
Just to say: this was proposed a few years ago and still sounds alright to
me, frankly, doesn't get us very far. We have to understand what it is we're
doing and why and what the outcome might be and then we need to propose
structures and institutions that can take us there.
I know we're all in a hurry to get some new gTLDs created, but if we just
take a little more time we will create something this time that works - and
we can't say that about previous attempts.
For those who are new(ish) to this debate, I was involved in CORE from the
start and was on the management committee for a while. However, I was always
critical of the centralist 'we know best, take it or leave it' attitude of
those who 'founded' CORE. My view is that the POC/CORE approach failed for
many reasons and that an attempt to ressurect it is also doomed to failure.
However, that's not to say that there isn't a lot of value that I would
support in the approach. 
If we can create an institution or propose the creation of an institution
that would have management of new gTLDs, I would support that. If that
institution has the power to create as few or as many gTLDs as it saw fit
consistent with guidelines drawn up by us and agreed to by the wider
community under ICANN guidance, then I would really like that. 
I think it would be good at this stage for more of the members of WG-C to
make input on how they think this process is going. Otherwise, we are going
to end up with a non-legitimate process!
Ivan