Re[2]: [wg-c] Straw Vote

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

Tuesday, August 17, 1999, 3:17:31 PM, John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com> wrote:


> Hi Milton,

>> The exclusivity [between options 1 & 2 in Question ONE of the straw poll]
>> is not absolute, black and white, but it really does
>> constitute an important and meaningful choice.
>> 
>> I hope you can give us a clearer indication of where you stand.

> I thought I explained it well in the comment. Obviously not. :-)

> If the question is "How many gTLDs and how fast", my position would be
> something between 200 and 2000. I can't personally see the nedd for more
> than that unless we were to consider company specific TLDs (f.e. ".aol" or
> ".ibm"), in which case we'd need to be able to scale to many millions (like
> ".com" today), and we'd actually have gone around a full circle bringing us
> back to the problem that we have today.
> I would argue that a go slow approach would be best, as the new dynamics of
> adding TLDs under the conditions I later mentioned (cost recovery registry,
> mandated sharing, etc) nearly oblige for it.
> So, add a few to start with (1-10 maybe?), see how that works, and then come
> up to speed. Maybe a second addition of 50-100, then a whole bunch, and then
> probably stop right there. All over the course of maybe 3 years or so.
> Just personal opinions.
> Hope I'm clearer now.

So you really do support Option 2?  Approve the introduction of a
larger number, with initial limits, and then the issue to be revisted
only if problems are identified with the initial rollout.

It seems your comments are more in line with Option 2 than Option 1.

In this area, we appear to be in agreement.  Glad to see that.


--
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934
Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/

(IDNO MEMBER)
Support the Cyberspace Association, the 
constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners 
http://www.idno.org