Re: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 19 August 1999, werner@axone.ch (Werner Staub) wrote:


>Jonathan,
>
>>         The WG is split.  Exactly half of the voters (22 people) expressed
>> support for Option One, some with reservations or additional requirements.
>> Thirteen voters expressed support for Option Two.  Seven voters sent
>> messages that I have, for purposes of quick summary, lumped together as
>> "neither / both / in between / other", and two voters urged that the focus
>> on new gTLDs is misplaced since .us remains undeveloped.
>
>The problem is not in the result of the vote, it is in the way you asked
>the question. Amongst the 22 people who did not vote for option 1, there
>are many who can live with it as second-best. The reason is that starting 
>with few gTLDs does not exclude adding more gTLDs later.


However, what question 1 clearly requires is yet another round of these
exact same arguments every single time anyone wants to expand the 
namespace some more.  How many times is it necessary we cover the
same ground?  How many different ways can the same arguments be made?

Option 1 is nothing but the TM/IP interests flexing their muscles and
wanting to maintain tight control over any addition to the namespace.

Option 2 is much more favorable, because it puts the burden on those
who wish to stop an existing practice, rather than the way things are 
now -- the burden being on those who wish to expand the namespace, who 
constantly have to battle against fictions and hypotheses about what
might happen if the namespace is expanded.

-- 
Mark C. Langston	     			Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org				     http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin					    http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA					     http://www.dnso.org