Re: [wg-c] Well, maybe this won't work

[Craig Simon <cls@flywheel.com>]

Hi Jon,

Rather than suggest a limited choice of compromise consensus-oriented
positions, why not just let people say what they each think the maximum
number of first-wave new gTLDs should be, the minimum number of months
in the evaluation period, and their preferred rate of annual additions
thereafter presuming the evaluation demonstrates there are no technical
or adminstrative reasons that would prohibit such additions?

My idea is this: Don't vote in ranges; just state your preferred number
as if it were really up to you. This presumes all the other issues of
dispute resolution, shared vs. proprietary vs. mixed model registries,
registry qualification, specialized vs. general use gTLDs, ICANN's
accountability, & etc. will be resolved to your satisfaction.  

Responses would look like this.

1000:0:12000   1000 new gTLDs/skip evaluation/12000 gTLDs annually

15:6:15        15 new gTLDs/6 month eval/15 annually thereafter

6:12:3         6 new gTLDs/12 month evaluation/3 annually thereafter

13:0:13        13 new gTLDs/no pause/13 annually thereafter 

0:0:0          0 new gTLDs/nothing to evaluate/no other additions

1:0:0          1 new gTLD/no subsequent additions


My vote:

15:6:30


Craig Simon



Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> 
>         After today's flurry of messages, I took another look at where things

...