Re: [wg-c] Trying to close on Question 1

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

ICANN can and should establish a new "set,"
which could be bounded numerically (i.e., another 250),
and add until it hits the boundary. Do I interpret the comment
below to mean that you have no objection to that?

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 22, 1999 at 09:31:00PM -0400, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > What is not apparent is the argument that could be used for
> > an ICANN result that significantly reduces the average monthly
> > increase in TLDs.  Anyone care to posit a justification to a
> > hypothetical court?
>
> The increase in TLDs has come exclusively through the addition of
> ccTLDS, a bounded, well-defined set, added as they become ready.
> Since it is a bounded set, the rate of addition must at some point
> slow, and eventually stop.  The rate of addition has essentially
> nothing to do with IANA/ICANN policy.
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain