Re: [wg-c] compromise proposal

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

>
> How about this:
>
> > This is irrelevant to the process. In my mind, the test-bed would be
> > implemented solely for the purpose of tweaking the business, operational
> > and technical processes and *not* to pander to individual or corporate
> > interests.
>
> Regardless, those left out of the testbed will be economically harmed. You
> can't dismiss it with hand waving about your intentions.

I submit that the economic loss incurred by the delays that this working
group have encountered by failing to achieve consensus are far greater. The
implementation of a test-bed phase during which we will be able to make well
founded decisions about the future operational, business and technical
processes by which we can add new gTLDs is the modest beginning of the
mitigation of these economic losses for all interested parties.

>
> > The number can be created arbritrarily without deference to the
> > points you raise above for the simple fact it is a *pilot* project - not
> > the final implementation.
>
> Again, just because you call it a pilot project does not change the
> fact that those companies involved in the pilot will have a
> significant advantage over those who wish to be in the
> pilot but are not included due to space limitation.

This gets back to the market economics discussion we had about a month ago.
No one was able to definitely prove either way whether or not the presence
of new sld/tld pairs would have an impact either way on existing/new/other
sld/tld pairs.

Regardless, it really all boils down to the fact that there are inequities
involved in every process ever created and while we will never be able to
eliminate them, we can strive to minimize them. To completely delay/alter or
otherwise affect the test-bed because of political concerns is a travesty.
This process is about operational, business and technical concerns - nothing
else.

>
> Again, I have a concrete proposal: determine the criteria
> first, and then have a call for participation. Then, with the
> number of companies known, return to this issue. Right now
> we're dealing with an unknown quantity. Make it known, and
> it gets much easier.
>
> Who knows, we may find that there are only 7 companies
> interested rather than the 10+ that everyone seems to
> think.

I don't disagree with this, but in no way should the number of interested
parties affect the number of test-bed participants. We need immediate and
manageable information about the proposed processes - not a political
free-for-all that causes the test-bed to be tied up in litigation and
politics for the next six years. If we do go ahead with a survey of
interest, it must solely be as an indication of interest, not to serve as
the sole determining factor behind our decisions.

-RWR