Re: Re[4]: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions

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

I don't give two hoots about what number "option" you prefer to consider.
If you have a religious fixation with the number two, I'm happy for you.
I've stated my position in plain English and in few words. If you prefer to
twist that around, I take offence. Once again, and for your benefit:

To the question of how many/how fast?
I favour an approach that starts slowly, and builds up speed, with a
target of adding a largish number of gTLDs (g as in generic) to the
root (200-2000?). I believe a sensible approach is to do it slow and
evaluate what part we are not doing well, so as to be able to scale it up
further. An initial small batch of a few (3-10?) gTLDs (g as in generic),
*should* be able to highlight problems (if any) and/or areas where things
can be done better.

I really don't think I can be any clearer as to where I stand on this
question. Please do not further "interpret" my words. You may agree or not
with them, you may put arguments or counter-arguments forward, but certainly
do not say "ahhhhhh, you really mean option 12 instead of option 7"

Please note to what I am responding. The question I am responding is that
which I place at the beginning of the paragraph. It is *only* about HOW MANY and
HOW FAST. There is NO discussion on who "gets" the gTLDs (g as in generic),
or if companies that have setup zone files in the past/present with certain
terminations should have or not privileges, or how to choose the registry
operations company, or shared vs non-shared, or anything else.

Do you think you will manage not to attribute further hidden in-between line
meaning of what I am stating?

Thanks in advance.

Yours, John Broomfield.

William Walsh wrote:
> Thursday, August 19, 1999, 7:31:34 PM, John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com> wrote:
> > William Walsh wrote:
> >> 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.
> 
> > <flame>
> > Why don't you drop it? Are you trying to pound in the point that there is
> > confusion in the wording? Apart from that, can you not understand that you
> > are not the only one that can read English, and therefore has read the
> > original questions? Would you mind stopping your continuous interpretation
> > of what everyone else is saying, in particular myself? I really don't need
> > your translation of my text and answers.
> 
> What do you have to fear from answering my questions, Mr Broomfield,
> rather than attacking me for asking them?  And then to accuse me of
> doing something I wasn't?
> 
> Is that really productive? Does that really further your goal of
> trying to force you point of view on others over their objections?
> 
> Since you snipped them out to avoid them, let me repost them here :
> 
> > 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?
> 
> So what is wrong with that approach?  What exactly is the problem?
> 
> Lets get into the details as to why you think this plan is bad.
> 
> Can you provide concrete answers for once?  Or just more personal
> attacks with no real substance?
> 
> --
> 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
> 
>