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

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 6 September 1999, Craig Simon <cls@flywheel.com> wrote:


>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?

Again, I have to ask:  What, exactly, will comprise this 'evaluation'?
Nobody seems to want to address this.  Everyone keeps mentioning it, 
apparently assuming that there's some predefined process for it, or that
the process will be defined ex post facto.

I strongly believe that the answers to these questions in part depend
upon what this evaluation process is and how it is to be executed.  How
can I say how many gTLDs should be introduced initially, if I don't know
how they are to be evaluated?  Perhaps the 'evaluation' will be nothing
more than those who wish to see no expansion whatsoever declaring the
expansion a failure, and putting a halt to the entire process.  In this
case, the initial number should be higher to account for the possibility
that the evaluation will be stacked against further expansion.  The
'evaluation' could be nothing more than a cursory check to ensure that
nothing was seriously broken with worldwide name resolution, followed by
the quick and regular addition of new gTLDs.  In this case, figures both
pre- and post-evaluation would again need to be adjusted accordingly.

Could we all please take a moment and discuss this mysterious evaluation
period that everyone now assumes will occur, but that nobody has yet
addressed in any substantial manner?

Questions I'd like answered include:  (NOTE:  Where I use the word
"who", I want names wherever possible.  If it's a body, a list of names
would be nice.  If the body doesn't yet exist, I want to know how they 
will be chosen)

1)  Who will be responsible for performing the evaluation?
2)  To whom will the evaluation report be made?
3)  Who makes the ultimate determination of success/failure?
4)  Who has the final word on whether or not expansion proceeds apace
    post-evaluation?
5)  What are the criteria for determining success/failure?
6)  Who sets these criteria?
7)  How soon after the initial rollout will the evaluation occur?
8)  How long will the evaluation take?
9)  Will there be any oversight?
10)  By what criteria will the evaluator(s) be chosen?  What are her/their
    qualifications?
11)  The same as #10, but addressed to the person(s) in #3 and #4.
12)  Will this evaluation include decisions like, "should this registry
     be allowed to handle this gTLD?"  and, "Should we continue using this
     gTLD, or should it be removed?"
13)  What decisions other than a yes/no to immediate further expansion, if 
     any, will be made?
14)  What is the timetable for rollout post-evaluation?
15)  What are the contingencies based on the decisions made in this 
     evaluation?


All of these questions are important.  Each of them could influence the
answers to the "what/how many/how fast" issues.  They should be discussed.

-- 
Mark C. Langston	LATEST: ICANN refuses	Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org  to consider application for       http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin    Constituency status from organized http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA      individual domain name owners      http://www.dnso.org