RE: [wg-c] response to Milton -- sorry if I'm imposing on you to

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

William, as you know, I've spoken in support of the need for the process you
are articulating.  And that the issue needs to be how, not how many. I think
you will recall that. thanks for the posting. Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:william@dso.net]
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 1999 1:50 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: Linda Wilson; Linda Wilson; Eugenio Triana; Geraldine Capdeboscq;
Jun Marai; Hans Kraaijenbrink; Frank Fitzsimmons; George Conrades; Mike
Roberts; Greg Crew; Esther Dyson; wg-c@dnso.org; mueller@syr.edu
Subject: RE: [wg-c] response to Milton -- sorry if I'm imposing on you
to



On 11-Sep-99 Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> I think we all seek to find a compromise which balances the interests of
all
> stakeholders, Milton. I respect your right to your views, but in this

The problem is that you are not showing a willingness to "compromise." 
Compromise is a give and take, we know your firm position, you know what
Milton's is, and you know what mine is.  What we all need to do is start
giving
way, and actually agreeing to compromise principles.

What makes me say that you are not seeking compromise in good faith is that
you
have not yet endorsed any proposal beyond the 1 new GLTD one you mention in
your email.  This is not a compromise position, Marilyn.  This is an
unwavering
position.

As long as you stick to that rigid position, and don't participate in
finding
some compromise, you are not working to achieve consensus, but are working
against it.  This is what bothers me about your comments recently.

So lets talk about what your concerns are that cause you to stay to your One
TLD position, and see how those concerns can be addressed in a proposal that
will be acceptable to a broad base of this workgroups participants,
silent and not so silent.

It is still my strong belief that a set of contractual obligations can be
established to address the concerns that all of us have raised, and that the
"evaluation" period can be used to examine the success of those registry
contracts and determine if any modifications need to be made to them.

And in the absence of any compelling reason to the contrary, to permit the
continued introduction of new gTLDs.

We need to stop the issue of HOW MANY tlds right now.  First we have to come
up
with the method in which a new TLD will be operated, and the requirements
they
will have to live under.  THEN, when those who advocate a lot and those
advocate a few or one or none can see how their concerns were addressed, we
can
move on to the question of how many.  To make a decision on this before we
have
decided under what procedures and requirements they will operate under is
placing the cart before the horse, and guaranteeing that this group will
never
reach consensus.  Those with real (and legitimate, I might add) concerns
over
matters relating to intellectual property, can see how their concerns are
being
addressed, and may become more friendly to the idea of more than one new
gTLD. 
Those that are concerned that by adopting too few at the beginning creates a
risk that only a few new TLDs will be created, and that in effect a truly
competitive market will not be established, can see that their concerns have
been addressed, and be more willing to see the number of initial ones
lowered.

But to get here we have to address the operating procedures and
requirements.

Let's get to work on it!


--
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934
Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/
 
Join DNSPolicy.com's discussion list!
http://www.dnspolicy.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/discuss
<IDNO MEMBER> http://www.idno.org