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

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

This was a point that I have been trying to get to for some time.
However, it has been  lost in the din created by those who don't want
ANY new TLDs to begin with, let alone work on a process to add new ones.
The arguments over "how many" were/are really arguments over "if any",
IMHO. This is because they really didn't want any, unless it was done
their way. The defnesive reaction, from other camps, was to take the
same uncompromising stance with their views. Unfortunately, there is no
way to craft a "solomon clause".

Now that were finally getting to some sort of consensus that new TLDs
are desireable/allowable, we can get on with the process question of
how, and under which conditions, to add them. For those of us in these
debates, the :"How many" question was recursively integrated with the
"If any" question. This condition was the main thing keeping us
dead-locked (and it still may).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of J.
> William Semich
> Sent: Monday, September 06, 1999 6:27 AM
> To: wg-c@dnso.org
> 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
> >
> >
> >
>