Re: [wg-c] compromise proposal

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

> 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

Completely irrelevant. That TLD increase was exclusively ccTLD increase
taking as a basis the ISO-3166 two-letter country-code list. As this list is
finite (countries/territories are not sprouting up all the time all around
the world in significant numbers), once they are all accounted for, the
addition of ccTLDs all but stops. Just minor modifications later, because
countries DO change their name, some split up due to internal matters,
others consolidate etc... However, as a whole the global picture of how
planet earth is constituted as far as country/territory divisions go is
quite stable.

In the same period you note there was an exact 0 increase in the number of
gTLDs which is what this WG is concerned with.

> It is a fair question to ask - on what basis would
> this working group, ICANN or the US Dept of Commerce
> significantly impede  this increase?  Clearly it is
> not technology or operations.

Are you advocating (it seems like it) for a continuation of the current
trend? Ie an increase of exactly 0 gTLDs? (It would certainly be in the best
interest of your client NSI).
The basis of this working group is precisely to CHANGE this stagnant
situation, not continue it.

Yours, John Broomfield.