Re[7]: [wg-c] straw vote -- question one results & call for votes on remaining questions

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

Still waiting for an answer, Mr Broomfield.

Is it really too much to ask for specifics about where we disagree so
that we can use that as a starting point for discussions?

Friday, August 20, 1999, 12:02:01 AM, William X. Walsh <william@dso.net> wrote:

> 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