Re[6]: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions

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

Thursday, August 19, 1999, 10:37:31 PM, John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com> wrote:


> 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.

Sorry, I'm not interpreting here, I'm just using your own words.  You
just supported option 2's language almost exactly.

Again I ask, what SPECIFICALLY in option 2's language do you object
to.  What EXACTLY, and why?  I want to work out what the differences
are here, so we know where we stand, nothing more.

Please stop attributing false reasons for my asking these questions in
order to attempt to dismiss them as unimportant.  Discovering the
exact points where we seperate on our positions is VERY important to
finding an area of consensus and compromise.

> 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"

So let me ask, since your own words almost word for word repeat option
2, what is it in option 2 SPECIFICALLY, that you disagree with?  With
this information we can move forward and try to work on this
differences.

> 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.

Option 2 contained no language about any of that.  We are talking time
tables ONLY.  Please answer the original question.  What SPECIFIC
language is in option 2 that you object to?

I will tell you specifically what is in option 1 that I object to.

The lack of a clear statement that in the absence of substantiable
justification that the roll out of new gTLDs in larger numbers (which
is what you say you support) will continue for certain.

This is the sticking point for me and why I elected for option 2.

What specifically do you disagree with?

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

I'm just trying to get a straight answer.  Something that has
historically been very difficult to get from you.

> Thanks in advance.

If you need help clarifying the questions, so you can actually answer
them, let me know, I'll even pay for the phone call.

--
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