Re: [wg-c] Separating the Sheep from the Goats

["Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>]

I simply have a problem with a value judgment being made here
putting certain classes of TLDs over others in the lineup.

--
Christopher Ambler
Personal Opinion Only, of course
This address belongs to a resident of the State of Washington
who does not wish to receive any unsolicited commercial email
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Mark C. Langston <skritch@home.com>
To: Kevin J. Connolly <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>
Cc: <mueller@syr.edu>; <wg-c@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, August 20, 1999 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-c] Separating the Sheep from the Goats 


> 
> On 20 August 1999, "Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> > I agree this is a legitimate linkage.  For instance, it doesn't do a
> >whole lot of good if ICANN adds 18 new GTLDs, all administered by NSI
> >:-0
> >
> >So . . . let me try a second cut:
> >
> >Three-phase rollout:
> >
> >(A) Proof of concept phase.  
> >
> >(B) Controlled RollOut Phase
> >
> >(C) First Stable Plateau
> 
> [much snippage above]
> 
> Kevin -
>   I like this, but the one thing I see missing here is the "evalutation"
> that I've perceived several people as arguing for occurring after each
> of these steps.  I'm wondering if this was implied in this plan, or
> left out, or is still something that needs to be hashed out?
> 
> Assuming that we can come up with an agreeable, workable evaluation
> plan, I think I like this.  Also assuming that (C) is not the last
> step.  I would imagine a cycle of controlled rollout->plateau over the
> next several years.
> 
> -- 
> Mark C. Langston      Let your voice be heard:
> mark@bitshift.org      http://www.idno.org
> Systems Admin     http://www.icann.org
> San Jose, CA      http://www.dnso.org
> 
>