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

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

Hi William,

> > I still say that options 1&2 are not exclusive.
> Certainly they are. One places the burden to show that there is a
> reason NOT to add new TLDs, the other places a reverse burden.

I think that you are reading too much into the options that were given:
----
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.
----

Option one says it on the first line, it is not considering whether it is
desirable or not. It just talks about how to proceed.
Option two actually talks about long term plans. If you want to implement
option two, it would be stupid not to do it in a way described in option
one.

In any case, this is a straw poll we're talking about, the idea is to find
out what the general ideas are. It's not exact wording that is going to
suddenly be carved in stone somewhere or that policy will be acted upon.
You can read it as you want. It is obvious that I have read it slightly
different from you. I understand perfectly your position, I think you
understand perfectly mine. That is what this exercise is all about.
For me, the answer to question one is:
Start slow, build up speed
And I'd add on that the word SAFELY:
Start slow, build up speed SAFELY.

I support something that would have as a goal getting 200-2000 gTLDs in the
legacy roots. The numbers are not something rigid (but I do think that
anything significantly above 2000 gives lots of headaches in a lot of
places).

Yours, John Broomfield.