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

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

> > Just for the record, I'd want MANY (many being probably something between
> > 200-2000, though for others, that might mean not many at all). I'd be
> happy
> > to start with "few"... Stands a better chance of evolving into "many" than
> > deciding "none".
> 
> I agree with you.
> 
> I'd be willing to start with a few. But the problem here is that option 1 doesn't
> say start with a few, it says start with a few and then STOP. In this case, the
> word "start" is irrelevant. It might as well say, "add a few and then stop."
> The terms for what would allow "starting" again aren't clear. That kills it in
> my book.
> Christopher

We all seem to agree that the wording of the option 1 & 2 is not something
that any of us like. Propose some way of starting to add TLDs where it can
be done in a slow fashion so that the effect can be observed, and that
nobody suddenly starts waving arms around saying "it's not being done as per
the schedule". One thing I think we've ALL learnt, is that despite Internet
going 10 times faster than any of us had expected, adding TLDs seems to find
it's way to add delays... Pre-adhering to any time-table (one per month for
example) would seem to be foolish at least in the light of what we've seen
over the past few years. You don't like the word "stop"... dunno how to
describe the moment between one TLD gets added and then the next...
If you prefer:
"Add a few, and then evaluate BEFORE adding more". Sounds nicer?

(pin-heads and angels if you ask me... but that's just my opinion).

Yours, John Broomfield.