Re: [wg-c] compromise proposal

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

I'll go along with it.
Note: I wouldn't have a problem with the number being larger either (10-20
aprox).
Yours, John Broomfield.

> 	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
>