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

["Keith Gymer" <keith.gymer@btinternet.com>]

Hooray. Well said Bill.  This is the  key issue as a number of us have been
trying to say all along (obviously I didn't manage to say it as clearly! ;-)
e.g as I wrote when responding to the first straw poll....
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Gymer <keith.gymer@btinternet.com>
To: <wg-c@dnso.org>
Sent: 19 August 1999 20:13
Subject: Re: [wg-c] straw poll -- reminder
<SNIP>
>this begs the
> question (which I think should be first addressed, and which might then
> change peoples' minds about which option is most desirable or practicable)
> of whether a rational structure for adding gTLDs should be developed first
> (I would say yes) with or without the option of "irrational" ;-)
> (unstructured) gTLDs as well (which I would not necessarily exclude).
> Keith

----- Original Message -----
From: J. William Semich <bill@mail.nic.nu>
To: <wg-c@dnso.org>
Sent: 06 September 1999 14:27
Subject: Wrong Question (Was Re: [wg-c] compromise proposal)


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.

Regards,

Bill Semich
At 10:36 AM 9/6/99 +0100, you wrote:
>On 3 Sep 99, at 12:26, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>
>> Some thoughts in response to the last day's posts:
>>
>> Tony suggests that instead of a plan to add 6-10 new gTLDs followed by an
>> evaluation period, we try to add "13 per six months."  Petter (and
Caroline
>> and Rita), on the other hand, urge that we should add only 2-3, and
follow
>> that with an evaluation period.  Both of these are reasonable positions.
>> But here's the deal: I think the proposal to add 6-10 gTLDs followed by
an
>> evaluation is the only one 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).  That
>> proposal doesn't in fact reflect my own views, but I'm willing to support
>> it anyway, for the sake of actually reaching an agreement that we can
take
>> to the NC.  It may be that this won't work - that enough folks favoring
>> fewer new gTLDs in the initial rollout will stick to their guns, and
enough
>> folks favoring more will stick to theirs, that we'll be unable to
assemble
>> a critical mass in the middle.  But I hope we can do it.  And, FWIW,
we're
>> getting there.  So far, Robert Connelly, Ross Rader, David Maher, Dave
>> Crocker, Roeland Meyer, John Broomfield, and Jean-Michel Becar have
>> indicated willingness to support the proposal, and Milton Mueller and
Mark
>> Langston have indicated a willingness to consider it.  That's a good
start.
>
>add me to the list : I agree also.
>siegfried
>
>
>