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

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

William

My company has from its original postings in the Green Paper and White paper
supported a slow, controlled, and thoughtful expansion -- suggesting that
1-3 could be possible number, but that we needed to start with a controlled
trial of only one, with an evaluation before  proceeding further. 

I understand that you prefer to think that we are totallly opposed to
expansion. That isn't the case. BUT we are totally committed to a thoughtful
approach to any expansion.  

I do not agree that 6-10 represents a compromise. I continue to support
Bill's formulation of a compromise approach. 

Best regards, 
Marilyn Cade
-----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:william@dso.net]
Sent: Monday, September 06, 1999 11:39 AM
To: Petter Rindforth
Cc: wg-c@dnso.org
Subject: Re: SV: Wrong Question (Was Re: [wg-c] compromise proposal)


Monday, September 06, 1999, 8:19:31 AM, Petter Rindforth
<petter.rindforth@enderborg.se> wrote:

> Bill, Marilyn, and All Others,
> I strongly agree!

And would any of you object to a policy that there would be NO new
TLDs?

I think this needs to be taken into account, that these people have a
strong interest in there being NO expansion of the TLD space, or at
the very least a very strongly controlled expansion, though no
expansion would be preferable.

Rather than all of us going back to our original positions, as far
from each other as they are, we ALL need to be working on areas of
compromise, including those who have a vested interest (sometimes
financial) in limiting expansion of namespace.

I think the 6-10 plan is getting close to that compromise area.

Let's not try and take a step backwards, please.

--
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934
Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/

Join DNSPolicy.com's discussion list!
http://www.dnspolicy.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/discuss
<IDNO MEMBER) http://www.idno.org