Re: [wg-c] Straw Vote

[rogerc@us.ibm.com]

Jon-
I'm happy to participate in your straw vote, with two qualifications:

1) I share some of the concerns expressed by others about the immediate role of
this Work Group.  Particularly during the period when our Group operates under a
commission from an interim Names Council, the status of a Work Group made up of
those who decided to join it can, and will, be debated.  While there is no
question that this Group serves an important function when it acts as a forum
for discussion, at this particular moment and under these circumstances,  any
effort by us to act  as a legislative body will certainly be more widely
debated.   (I think that situation changes when a permanent Names Council is
installed and when that Council takes whatever action it wants with regard to
its commission for this Work Group.)  So I wouldn't want my participation in
your straw vote to be interpreted as my expressing a view, one way or another,
on the authority of this Work Group to take actions in advance of the
installation of a permanent Names Council;

2) Like several others, I feel constrained by there being only two options
available under Question One, since neither of them actually reflects my views.
(I realize that is often the purpose of a decision tree: to force participants
to select from options so that the options themselves can be progressively
refined)

Having said as much, between Options 1 and 2 to Question One, Option 1 comes
closer than 2 to reflecting my views.  So I guess you would say, I select Option
1.

Roger

Internet Address: RogerC@US.IBM.COM
Program Director-Policy & Business Planning, IBM Internet Division



QUESTION ONE: HOW MANY NEW gTLDS, AND HOW FAST?

Option 1: Without regard to whether it would be desirable to have many
gTLDs in the long term, ICANN should proceed now by adding only a few, and
then pausing for evaluation.  Only after assessing the results should it
initiate any action to add more.

Option 2: ICANN should implement a plan contemplating the authorization of
many new gTLDs over the next few years.  (Example: ICANN might plan to
authorize up to 10-12 new registries, each operating 1-3 new gTLDs, each
year, for a period of five years; each year's authorizations would be
staggered over the course of the year.)  This option would place the burden
on opponents, if evidence comes in demonstrating that additional new gTLDs
are a bad idea or that the rollout is too fast, to bring that evidence to
ICANN's attention and call for a halt or a slowdown.