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

["Keith Gymer" <keith.gymer@btinternet.com>]

I too have been away on an internet-free holiday and have just returned to
699 emails, not all of which I can claim to have read.

However, would share the reservations which appear to have been expressed by
others about whether a vote like this has any real benefit - I certainly
feel it is unwise to try to draw conclusions as to the existence or not of
any consensus (as Jonathan appears to be attempting) of the proportionate
interests of the various stakeholder groups.  That is what the NC is
supposed to do- and ultimately NC votes will determine that "consensus".

To my knowledge, the participants from the various interest groups
represented in wg-c have not been validated to be proportionate in number to
the NC constituencies with which they are most likely associated.  Indeed I
would venture that there is a disproportionate number of would-be gTLD
registries represented on this list for a start, and I'm sure others would
claim there is an XS of TM reps ;-)  So whilst votes cast may be indicative
of the views of the respective constituencies represented by those voting, a
simple tally of the number of votes is meaningless in the absence of some
weighting by associated constituency for all the voters.

For the record, I would agree with John Lewis' comments below and would have
voted for option 1- however, as John rightly observes, this begs the
question (which I think should be first addressed, and which might then
change peoples' minds about which option is most desirable or practicable)
of whether a rational structure for adding gTLDs should be developed first
(I would say yes) with or without the option of "irrational" ;-)
(unstructured) gTLDs as well (which I would not necessarily exclude).
Keith

----- Original Message -----
From: <john.c.lewis@bt.com>
To: <weinberg@mail.msen.com>; <wg-c@dnso.org>
Cc: <paul.mylotte@bt.com>; <tony.ar.holmes@bt.com>; <adrian.pauling@bt.com>;
<janet.henderson@bt.com>; <malcolm.barter@bt.com>; <mark.logan@concert.com>;
<steve.bartholomew@concert.com>
Sent: 18 August 1999 18:45
Subject: RE: [wg-c] straw poll -- reminder


> 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
>