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

[Paul Garrin <pg@name-space.com>]

>> 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.
>
>Hi,
>	I agree with Werner completely. Some people said that the two
>options were mutually exclusive, others (like myself) said they were
>compatible. Whether we were right or wrong is not important. What is
>important is that different people perceived in different ways, meaning that
>it wasn't all together clear.
>	I'd like to know if everyone would be happy about the idea of adding
>a few right now, and looking at what that does INDEPENDENTLY of what/if/when
>we add later. Maybe some sort of question could be asked in that direction.
>Seeing from the answers that were given, there were a very small minority
>that seemed to say outright NO, but I'd like to confirm that. If most seem
>to agree with putting things in, regardless of the thought of how the long
>term scenario should be and all agree that it's safe to start with just a few
>and see how that goes, then maybe we can get consensus on the short term
>scenario, and then take it from there. Suggestions?
>
>Yours, John Broomfield.


Dear John,

I would agree with option 1 if the "few" new gTLDs added were operated
by more than one registry, representing all models.  To do otherwise, i.e.
to add TLDs operated only by CORE or Name.Space or others would not
only be unfair to those who have invested time, money, and resources
in building and innovating new TLD-oriented DNS infrastructure and
management, it would also be useless in a determining which models
of administering the namespace are more or less feasable than others.

With this in mind, I propose that if such a recommendation as option 1
is agreed to, then it be modified to state that a reasonable number of
new gTLDs should be added to the ROOT from each of the presently
operational registries (there are several), representing different
economic and business models across the board.  Preference should
be given to TLDs that are "populated" without respect to the number.
("populated" means TLDs which have clients holding active SLDs).
Option 1 should also not exclude the recognition of additional TLDs,
nor unreasonably delay the introduction of them.

To also satisfy those who are "TLD-phobic", it should also be added
that each registry have a stated dispute and famous name policy, not
necessarily a uniform one, and an openly queryable whois database.

Respecfully submitted,

Paul Garrin
Founder/CEO
Name.Space, Inc.
http://name-space.com