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

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

Craig,

You've totally missed the point and you are therefore not helping
matters. The issue we must first address is not "How many" but "If any
at all". The next step from there is "under what conditions". The "how
many" question should largely answer itself from there.

We keep skipping the "under which conditions" question and therefore get
dead-locked on the "how many" issue when folks recind their "if any at
all" statements because the conditions are still fuzzy.

Personally, I think that the "under which conditions" question is the
real source of the dead-lock. Further, it takes more real work than many
of us are willing to dedicate to this process.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Craig
> Simon
> Sent: Monday, September 06, 1999 3:56 PM
> To: Jonathan Weinberg; wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] Well, maybe this won't work
>
>
> 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
>
> ...
>