Re[4]: [wg-c] straw poll -- reminder

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

Wednesday, August 18, 1999, 2:36:55 PM, Chicoine, Caroline <chicoinc@PeperMartin.com> wrote:

> I respectfully disagree.  Option 2 states "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."  A
> call for a "halt" or "slowdown" implies to me that this is on a faster
> track than option one, which uses the language "adding ONLY a few, and
> then PAUSING for evaluation".

The difference is that there is no assumption that MORE gTLDs will be
added in option 1.  Both options will have evaluations, but the main
issues seperating them are :

1) Option 2 says that the assumption is that more TLDs will be rolled
out absent evidence that there is a need to stop it (this implies an
evaluation after the initial TLDs are rolled out.

Option 2 does not say that if we do the initial ones, that unless we
stop it then we open the flood gates.  No one here, most certainly not
me, has advocated that.

The only difference is the burden is on those who want to stop new
TLDs to justify any delays or stops.


--
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