Re: [wg-c] compromise proposal

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@ebarn.com>]

> 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.


What is the long term direction implicit in this proposal. I sense that
there is a phase three dangling that has not yet been mentioned. Of course
it could take a variety of shapes and is perhaps beyond the scope of this
thread.

I suppose the really big question is - how big do we recommend that stage
two be? I am not opposed to some of the free-for-all proposals that have
been set forth previously, my big concern is about the process of the
matter. If we cannot deploy a bazillion new TLDs under sane rules, then I
think we are better limiting ourselves to a more controlled rol-out. On the
other hand, if we can achieve consensus as to what a sane procedure for
massive roll-out might be, then perhaps the free-for-all model can work.

>
> 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.


Absolutely agree re: simplicity.

I suppose that the redux of my point was that we should logically start
with a limited test-bed that distances itself from the political process as
much as possible. This would allow for complete focus on the process,
business model and technical questions that will invariably arise without
having to deal with the lurking lawsuits that have been so oft implied
here.

-RWR