Re: [wg-c] Straw Vote

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Dave, have you reviewed on the WG-C archives the
discussion of this issue? It might help us to understand better
where you stand and it might help you to understand better why
the options were formulated the way they were.

Basically, the largest number anyone is talking about as a "generic"
goal was about 300 over 3 years. The real issue was whether ICANN
would:

* specify *in advance* its intention to add that many, absent any demonstrable
harm, and proceed to do so unless problems arose, (Option 2), or,

* add a very small number (people spoke in terms of 2 or 3, I think)
and then go through an entirely new proceeding before adding any more.
(Option 1)

Based on your discussion below, I see you more as an Option 2
person, but I may be engaging in wishful thinking. So let us know....

Dave Crocker wrote:

> It is not known what the actual limits to DNS TLD name space size are,
> within current DNS technology.  There is strong consensus among the DNS
> technical community that we are not currently near the limit, but there is
> considerable difference of opinion about the likely limit.
>
> Given that the DNS is essential to Internet operations, efforts to modify
> the DNS (administration and/or operations) require considerable prudence.
>
> Prudent operations requires incremental change.  Hence, Option 1 is
> mandatory, in terms of responsible technical administration.
>
> (To avoid any possible confusion, I'm voting for Option 1, but also saying
> that this particular question isn't really subject to vote, since no
> alternative to Option 1is operationally responsible.)
>
> However, the specific question of how many TLDs to add in an increment, how
> to evaluate the effect, and how long to wait for the next increment, are
> all open items.
>
> Option 2 is not mutually exclusive of Option 1.  There is nothing wrong
> with stating an intent to pursue the addition of relatively large numbers
> of gTLDs, as permitted by administrative and operational experience and
> limits.  In fact, there is quite a bit RIGHT with stating such an
> intent.  However, stating the intent does not eliminate the requirement for
> deciding how to increment the name space and who shall be permitted to
> administer the new gTLDs, along with the other questions about numbers and
> pace.
>
> With respect to who has what burden of proof, there is a very large
> difference between stating a generic (pun intended) goal and listing the
> details for implementing the change.  Absent considerable discussion about
> details, it is not reasonable to make specific commitments about numbers or
> dates, at this time.
>
> In other words, the specific text for Option 2 is the first sentence and it
> commits to pursuing a goal.  I vote in favor of that goal.
>
> However, the later commentary in the paragraph assigns burdens more
> narrowly than is currently realistic.  Operational prudence requires the
> physician's "first do no harm" dictum, so that there is a continuing
> burden, on those seeking change, to provide an adequate basis for believing
> that the change is safe.
>
> d/
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Dave Crocker                                         Tel: +1 408 246 8253
> Brandenburg Consulting                               Fax: +1 408 273 6464
> 675 Spruce Drive                             <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA                 <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>