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

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

I think you don't understand what I'm saying. The proof is that we're still
where we were a few years ago. The two camps (I'm convinced that all
the camps are just variations on these two themes) are:
A-let the entities choose their gTLDs and market them however they want, and
  good luck to them.
B-gTLDs get assigned and decided by ICANN and the entities will run them as
  a backend database operation.

We can fight over semantics as long as we want, but these two positions are
NOT able to be combined in a consensus position. I think that we HAVE at
least proven that. They are non-compatible options.

How many gTLDs, at what speed, registry requirements and criteria are
totally different worlds depending what choice is taken (or what slight
variation on one of the above choices).

This WG *CAN* work correctly with the current approach, but it can NOT
overcome the above choice (and I'm not sure that it is for this WG to
decide).

The above choice APPEARS to be the subject of negotiation between ICANN, DoC
& NSI. If so, life will be a lot simpler once it is clear.

I am not advocating a different approach, scrapping what we have, or
starting over. I'm just stating the obvious (like the mathmatician), and
that is that we're deadlocked from the beginning. This deadlock has two very
different paths forward, so arguing about life AFTER the deadlock is stale.
The deadlock has to be resolved FIRST.

Yours, John Broomfield.

> We can constantly start over, each time changing the approach, the 
> methodology, or whatever.
> 
> Or we can try to make progress down a single path and work through the details.
> 
> It is certain that constantly deciding that a current approach is the wrong 
> one will guarantee taking an infinite amount of time to reach a conclusion.
> 
> d/
> 
> At 04:43 PM 9/11/99 , John Charles Broomfield wrote:
> >Iam getting more and more convinced that we're being asked to put the cart
> >in front of the horse.
> >The question of "should there be more gTLDs?" apart from the overly
> >defensive trademark lobbies seems to be answered by most by "yes".
> >Unfortunately, it's a rather meaningless question.
> >
> >I *feel* that the question of "what criteria should be used to choose
> >registry operating entities?" is nearly as meaningless, as we need to know
> >exactly what type of beast we're talking about with respect to TLDs before
> >we can know what we want to ask from the enities that
> >operate/maintain/run/manage (take your pick) them.
> >
> >If we don't know under what are the rules (for example: is it a background
> 
> 
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Dave Crocker                                         Tel: +1 408 246 8253
> Brandenburg Consulting                               Fax: +1 408 273 6464
> 675 Spruce Drive                             <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA                 <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
>