Re: [wg-c] straw poll -- reminder

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 01:24:28AM -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
> Wednesday, August 18, 1999, 12:55:35 AM, Werner Staub <werner@axone.ch> wrote:
[...]
> >> QUESTION ONE: HOW MANY NEW gTLDS, AND HOW FAST?
> 
>>I vote for option 1. (Note that I believe that many new TLDs are needed in 
>>the medium term, but unless we start with few, we will never get any at all.)
> 
> Option 2 says exactly what you say you support above.

No, it doesn't, though I appreciate your creative attempts to 
redefine other peoples votes.

> It just places
> the presumption that unless there is a compelling reason to hold up
> more, that the assumption will be that many will be added after the
> initial in the first couple years.

Then you go on to point out why option 2 is *not* what Werner 
said.  Amazing...

> The first one does not have this assumption, and your comments above
> seem to indicate that you support the assumption that many TLDs should
> be added, with only a few initially.  In essence, you say option one,
> but your comments say option two.

In case you haven't noticed, there are many factions here, some who 
don't want any new gTLDs at all, and some of whom would like lots of 
new gTLDs as quickly as possible.

Option 1 is a clear, simple, and *neutral* statement of operational
practice: You add some gTLDS, and then you evaluate the result.  The 
operational results in question are not just the technical operation 
of the root servers -- they include effects on TM holders and 
ccTLDs, as well.

Option 2, on the other hand, is an attempt by one faction to 
pre-load the decision process in that evaluation.  On the face of 
it, that's a bad-faith "compromise".

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain