RE: [wg-c] Straw Vote

[Elisabeth PORTENEUVE <Elisabeth.PORTENEUVE@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

I fully agree with Marilyn:

| Message-ID: <6751E347E374D211857100A0C92563DC637458@MAILDC>
| From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>
| To: "'rmeyer@mhsc.com'" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>,
|         Jonathan Weinberg
|          <weinberg@mail.msen.com>, wg-c@dnso.org
| Subject: RE: [wg-c] Straw Vote
| Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:43:27 -0400
|
| I don't believe that we are actually ready to start "balloting" even as
| "straw polls"; we first need to assess whether we have diverse and broad
| participation engaged in the dialogue about this sensitive and critical set
| of issues.  Let's take a quick assessment, pre-Santiego, on how
| representative this effort is. 

I may add that before asking myself the QUESTION ONE,
and needed to understand the QUESTION ZERO: WHY this permanent
pressure and a rush for gTLDs ?

What US folks do not see is that they should restore to live
.US, set up some brand STLDs under that, and see how it works
under US law. As of today the US folks do not have a choice 
-- it is .com/.org/.net -- they are screaming, and making 
a worldwide noisy fuss for US internal matters.

The .US is not destroyed neither useless. There is only 50 STLDs
allocated -- it leaves millions of possibilities.
The Naming Authority for .US is needed, the law is US,
just some experience missing.
As I stated in my previous email, there is no enforcability
of brand gTLD on the international level, .law is useless.
But the .law.us is perfectly well defined, and probably needed
by customers and lawyers (US and non-US), it is quality approach.
There is number of others, let competitors imagine
and submit it to the US Naming Authority.

> QUESTION ONE: HOW MANY NEW gTLDS, AND HOW FAST?
My answer is: none. 
.US first and immediately, this will alleviate pressure,
and bring some experience.
The next step is a complete study about international
rules under which new gTLDs should operate.

Elisabeth