[wg-c] compromise proposal

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

	Some quick responses to questions people have asked:

	It seems to me sensible that, in this sort of limited initial
rollout, each new registry should be restricted to a single gTLD.  
(Jean-Michel Becar, as well as Roeland, urged this in our earlier
discussion.)  Six to ten new gTLDs, thus, would mean six to ten new
registries.  Two caveats:  (1) If Roeland is correct and ICANN can't in
fact find that many qualified entities seeking to be registries, then I
expect it would want to rethink this limitation.  (2) In any event, after
the initial rollout, once ICANN has moved on to Stage Two, it would make
sense for it to establish procedures not only to admit additional
registries, but also to allow existing registries to add additional TLDs.

	I suspect that this formulation helps answer Chris's question as
well.  With the opportunity to authorize six to ten new registries, if
ICANN excludes any major player, it won't be for lack of a slot to put it
in.

	I saw your "Back to the charter post," Ross, and it was a big part
of the history that I relied on in trying to put my compromise together.
(I apologize for not giving you credit.)  I tried to make my proposal
simpler and shorter.  I figured that the more components a proposal has,
the more sticking points there are, and the harder it is to secure
broad-based agreement.

Jon


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