Re: Wrong Question (Was Re: [wg-c] compromise proposal)

[Annie Renard <Annie.Renard@nic.fr>]

 In your previous mail you wrote:

	 Hello;
	 
	 This question of "how many new gTLDs should we start with?" stands the main
	 issue on its head.
	 
	 That main issue is not *how many* new gTLDs to introduce, but *how to*
	 introduce new gTLDs (which goes back to the question of "Why does the
	 public need new gTLDs?") 
	 
	 For example, I might be very likely support Tony's "16 per six months" if
	 these were defined as chartered or restricted TLDs. They would serve a
	 public service, helping users more logically locate the correct Web sites
	 they are interested in reaching (such as "acme.movers" vs
	 "acme.distributors" or whatever). Then gTLDs like .med, .shop, .nom, .per,
	 .ncom or .adult would make sense (if they have a charter to predefine what
	 "uses" registrants must fit the domain name into.)
	 
	 But I would likely only support a preliminary test of just *one* new gTLD
	 for a year or more if, on the other hand, the plan is for these new gTLDs
	 to be totally open as are .com, .net and .org under current management at
	 NSI. 16 new gTLDs per month under such a setting is utter chaos for users
	 and businesses alike.
	 
	 I expect others on this list and elsewhere may feel the same way.
	 
	 So please don't count me in your consensus for adding 6-10 new gTLDS,
	 unless we all first agree under what terms or procedures such new gTLDs
	 will be created and operating. 
...	 
I fully agrees this Bill statement.
Best regards,

---
        Annie Renard    [nic@nic.fr]
        AFNIC/NIC France
	c/o INRIA domaine de Voluceau BP105, 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX, France
	http://www.nic.fr/
	Personal Email: Annie.Renard@nic.fr