RE: [wg-c] compromise proposal

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

The question arises as to how many registries this would involve. I
submit that if it involves only a single registry then the new gTLDs are
moot.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Mikki
> Barry
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 6:58 AM
> To: A.M. Rutkowski; Jonathan Weinberg; wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] compromise proposal
>
>
> At 9:39 AM -0400 9/1/99, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> >At 12:07 AM 9/1/99 , Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> >>         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
> >
> >The proposal doesn't reflect my personal views either -
> >which are best described as "agnostic."  So I hope
> >the following remarks are not misinterpreted.
> >
> >A factual analysis of the TLD increases over the
> >seven year period from July 1992 to July 1999 under
> >the IANA regime, indicates that the six month increases
> >in new TLDs had a statistical mean of 16.6 and a
> >median of 13.5
>
> Well then, how about a first round addition of 15 gTLDs with a 6 month
> evaluation period?  Of course, it might be difficult to find
> out who agrees
> with this if we can't vote :-)
>
>