Re[2]: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions

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

Thursday, August 19, 1999, 1:47:17 PM, John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com> wrote:

> 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".

And that is EXACTLY what option 2 says.  Option one says to start with
a few, and no assumption that there will ever be many.  It implies
that a second round of proposals would be called for to further
expand, proposals which would then have the strong opposition of those
who got included in the initial "few" round.

Option two does start with a few, not many.  It then seeks to further
expand them, unless there is a reason to stop.

What is wrong with that approach EXACTLY.

No more generalities, lets get down to specifics.  What exactly is
wrong with that approach?

--
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