Re[2]: [wg-c] straw poll -- reminder

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

Wednesday, August 18, 1999, 4:22:16 AM, Ann-Catherine Andersson <aca@telia.net> wrote:


> I would chose Option 1, as this seems to be an operationally safer way to
> start.
> The goal must be to speed up the process in the long run though.......

Option 2 seems to have the same "operational safety" and unlike option
1, it addresses your 2nd concern about speeding up the process in the
long run.

Option 2 is not adding a lot of TLDs right off the bat.  Please read
it again :

> 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


It calls for the same slow controlled initial rollout, but the
assumption is that unless there are operational issues that cannot be
easily resolved, then more new domains will be added.  Basically, we
assume they will be added, unless justification is there (for
operation safety, etc) to stop it.

Basically the only difference between Option 1 and 2 is that Option 2
places the burden on those who want to stop new gTLDs to justify it,
and this seems to coincide with your comments above.

I'm seeing this a lot, where people's comments are more in line with
Option 2 but they are voting for Option 1 and it is really mystifying.


--
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