[wg-c] compromise proposal

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	I'd like to propose a compromise on "how many, how fast."  This is not a
proposal that I expect everybody to agree with.  It's a proposal, rather,
that I expect some folks to reject out of hand, and that I expect nobody to
agree with completely.  But I'm hopeful that enough folks in the center of
the group will be willing to sign on, the interests of reaching a solution,
to give us the sort of rough consensus that we can take to the next level.

	We had a lot of discussion, a while back, centering on the question
whether there should be a first round of new TLDs followed by an evaluation
period ("option one"), or a large-scale phased rollout that ICANN might
choose to interrupt ("option two").  I've been thinking about this, and it
seems to me that any consensus this group reaches will have to be based on
option one.  That is, I'm convinced that the WG won't in fact be able to
reach consensus on any compromise that doesn't include a first round
followed by an evaluation period.

	In return for the option two supporters giving ground and agreeing to
this, though, there may be some room to tweak the "how many in the first
round?" issue.  Folks have expressed a spectrum of views on this.  At least
one person urged that there be no more than three; some other folks lauded
the IAHC plan, which included seven; still others urged hundreds or more.

	I'm proposing that, as a compromise, middle-ground recommendation, we
begin with a first round of 6-10 new gTLDs followed by an evaluation
period.  This proposal doesn't reflect my personal views (I support a much
broader rollout).  And many "option two" people will see this as not
compromise but capitulation.  But I believe that if a critical, central
mass of the WG is to come to any agreement on the "how many, how fast"
question, this is about what the agreement will amount to.

	I think it's tremendously important for us actually to reach agreements,
to have concrete proposals that we can take to the NC.  As I explained in
my posting at <http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Archives/msg01494.html>, I
think that's fully consistent with the motion the NC passed on Thursday.
I'm willing to support this proposal, even though it doesn't reflect my own
views, for the sake of reaching an agreement.  If this proposal is at all
remotely near something you think you can live with, I urge you to sign on.
 I know that there will be opposition to this, from both sides.  But if the
folks in the center can come together here, then we can get something done.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, WG-C
weinberg@msen.com