[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Re[4]: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions
Title:
First off John, please take a deep breath and
relax.<grin>
Next, and I'm sorry to say this at this late date. I
think that Johnathn's question missed the point.
- I believe that I have convincingly stated that the real
problem is registries and not TLDs.
- There is ample evidence that the DNS system will house
millions of TLDs.
- There is also sufficient evidence that there is demand for no
more than a few thousand (TLDs, that is).
- However, there is also evidence that, once a registry is
established, they can hoiuse ALL of the TLDs (as NSI is doing now) with very
little incremental cost per TLD.
It is only the initial capital outlay that is the major
barrier to creating more registries. My point is that we've been arguing the
wrong issues and the poll misses the point. We should be discussing registries
and their number..
> Behalf Of John Charles Broomfield
>
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 1999 10:38 PM
>
> 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
>
>
> >
>