[wg-c] Votebot sample ballot.

["Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>]

Dear Colleagues:  This is what a Votebot from Dan Busarow would look like.

Dan posts the first ballot at midnight GMT.  He posts a second ballot three 
days later and a third three (or two) days later.  One one ballot needs to 
be returned.  However, if a member happens to miss the original posting, he 
gets a second (and a third) chance.  (Remember the old classic movie, "The 
Postman Always Rings Twice?")

In addition, if a member has a change of opinion, his final ballot 
overwrites any earlier ballot.

The results are posted so that all may see, all may confirm their own votes.

That said, here is how I would compose such a ballot for the present 
issue.  (I was the member of CORE Excom who organized all the Votebots in 
the past, of which there have been over twenty.)

Regards, BobC


ID: (@/*<EH)$.LL`     [Note:  This is the little ID locator.]
This is your ballot on the question "HOW MANY NEW gTLDS, AND HOW FAST?".
The voting period is from Sept 11, 1999 00:00 GMT to Sept 18, 1998 23:59 GMT.
The ballot must be returned to dnsovote@dnso.beach.net
With most mailers, simply replying to this message will do the right thing.

The Issue is as stated below:

QUESTION: HOW MANY NEW gTLDS, AND HOW FAST?

Option 0:       No new gTLDs should be delegated.

Option 1:       Without regard to whether it would be desirable to have many
gTLDs in the long term, ICANN should proceed now by adding only a few, and
then pausing for evaluation.  Only after assessing the results should it
initiate any action to add more.

Option 2:       ICANN should implement a plan contemplating the 
authorization of
many new gTLDs over the next few years.  (Example: ICANN might plan to
authorize up to 10-12 new registries, each operating 1-3 new gTLDs, each
year, for a period of five years; each year's authorizations would be
staggered over the course of the year.)  This option would place the burden
on opponents, if evidence comes in demonstrating that additional new gTLDs
are a bad idea or that the rollout is too fast, to bring that evidence to
ICANN's attention and call for a halt or a slowdown.

Option 1/2:  Delegate a modest number as suggested in Option 1.  Carefully 
monitor the process.  If there are not difficulties, or if the difficulties 
can be addressed with effective corrective actions, move toward greater 
liberalisation of new gTLDs.

Please mark your selections in each category by placing an X between the []s,
e.g. [x].

Please do _not_ edit the ballot beyond indicating your choice.

[Option 0]
[] 0

[Option 1]
[] 1

[Option 2]
[] 2

[Option 1/2]
[] 1/2

END OF BALLOT