Re: [wg-c] compromise proposal

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 2 September 1999, Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com> wrote:


>	I think the "test bed" concept will work.  I part company, though,
>with the proposal to add five new gTLDs in the first round.  For the
>reasons that I set out in my earlier message, I think the only proposal
>with a reasonable chance of winning rough consensus across the broad range
>of views represented in this group (ranging from folks interested in
>adding only one gTLD to folks interested in the immediate start of a
>phased rollout of hundreds or more) is one to add 6-10 gTLDs followed by
>an evaluation.  If we can achieve rough consensus, we've done a
>huge amount.


Before I could buy into this, I'd have to know what exactly is
meant by "evaluation".  Who does this evaluation?  What are the criteria?
Will gTLDs be removed and replaced with others?  Will registrars?
Will registries?

These are all questions that, in my mind, need to be answered.  If we
have a reasonable proposal on the floor that has a vague "evaluation"
period, this would be an easy means to counteract anything we agree to
post hoc.  If we recommend an evaluation period, we should be
clear as to what we mean when we use the term.

-- 
Mark C. Langston	LATEST: ICANN refuses	Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org  to consider application for       http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin    Constituency status from organized http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA      individual domain name owners      http://www.dnso.org