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

[john.c.lewis@bt.com]

Apologies for not responding earlier but I've been travelling on business
followed by vacation. 

I am keen to meet the deadline of midnight EDT 18 August 99 and so submit
the BT vote as follows:

I am in favour of option one pending the establishment of a rational
structure upon which gTLDs can be based. 

There will undoubtedly be consifderable demand for new domains, but the
framework is the most important principle which needs to be established to
ensure stability, coherence and consistency in the future.  I propose that
there should be an extended dialogue to determine the framework, processes
and taxonomy of the gTLD species definitions The Yellow Pages argument is
the best example offered to date identifying the need for a classification
system. The debate needs to address the issue of ergonomic structure for the
gTLD and ease of user access if it is to develop the basis of intuitive
naming systems, for which the Internet has gained its reputation.

Regards

John C Lewis
Manager - International Organisations Europe
BT delegate ETNO Executive Board
BT delegate EURODATA Foundation Board
Tel: +44 (0) 1442 295258 Mob: +44 (0) 802 218271
Fax: +44 (0) 1442 295861

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Jonathan Weinberg [SMTP:weinberg@mail.msen.com]
> Sent:	18 August 1999 03:49
> To:	wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject:	[wg-c] straw poll -- reminder
> 
> 	I'm away from home, and as a result not as well-organized as I'd
> like to be.  Near as I can tell, the following 24 WG members who have
> posted to the list at least once[*] haven't submitted votes in the straw
> poll:  Dennis Jennings, Kilnam Chon, Daiva Tamulioniene, Eva Frolich,
> Amadeu Abril i Abril, Ivan Pope, Werner Staub, Ross Wm. Rader, Javier
> Sola, John Lewis, Tolga Yurderi, Petter Rindforth, Martin B. Schwimmer,
> Craig Simon, Jeffrey Neuman, Onno Hovers, Keith Gymer, Jim Glanz, Rob
> Hall, Raul Echeberria, Caroline Chicoine, Robert F. Connelly, Anthony
> Lupo, Kathryn Kleiman.
> 
> 	To the extent that any of you *have* voted (but I lost those files
> en route to my mother-in-law's house), please let me know.  For those of
> you who haven't voted, I urge you please to do so now.  You need only send
> in an answer to Question One at this point.  For your convenience, I'm
> reprinting Question One below.
> 
> 
> QUESTION ONE: HOW MANY NEW gTLDS, AND HOW FAST?
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> -------------------------------
> 
> [*] I figure that anybody who hasn't posted to the list even once has
> probably decided that his or her energies are best expended elsewhere.
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
> Jonathan Weinberg
> co-chair, WG-C
> weinberg@msen.com