Re: [wg-c] Eureka?

["Martin B. Schwimmer" <martys@interport.net>]

>	I think [2] won't work -- if we try it, odds are we'll end up adding a few
>new gTLDs and no more. If we add three or five or seven new TLDs, and then
>replay the entire argument from scratch, the weight of inertia will be
>heavily on the side of those who argue against expanding the name space.
>Current TM interests will still oppose future TLDs; the new TLD operators
>added by ICANN won't be thrilled about further expansion either.  So if we
>are *in fact* to add a lot of TLDs in the long term, I think option [1] is
>the only way to do it.
>

Even if these factions behave as predicted above, you do not consider the
fact that there will be more facts upon which to design new TLDs.  IF new
TLDs become havens for pirates, that will be a fact, if they don't, that
will be a fact.  And the parties which argue positions overwhelmingly
contradicted by the facts will lose credibility.

I believe it is Mr. Connolley from Japan who put in his sig file the
expression "One test is worth three expert opinions."  This suggests that
five to seven tests would be worth from fifteen to twenty-one expert opinions.





@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @