Re: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises...

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

On 13 September 1999, Javier <javier@aui.es> wrote:

>
>I don't think that we need a formal vote, but the answers to this poll can 
>give a fair idea of what the WG thinks.
>
>I would also like to encourage those who have positions that are not far 
>appart from this one to yield a little bit and support it, if they can, 
>expressing their differences of opinion or specifying position, such as: 
>"yes, but with a slow roll-out" or whatever your reservation is. It is 
>clear by now that there will be no agreement on deploying 1 TLD or 100, 
>this is the only middle ground in which we can reach some sort of 
>agreement. In order to get anywhere we need to soften our positions and 
>really try to reach consensus.

I support it, as long as we don't have to do this all over again after
the evaluation period.

To clarify:  This has been an unholy mess.  It's always been this way.
If the initial addition goes well, and if there isn't an overwhelming
reason found not to continue the process during the evaluation period,
I'd really, really like to bury this horse and let things continue,
rather than reconvene a group of mostly the same players to rehash
all of this yet again.  There will be new gTLDs added at some point
in the future, period.  And instead of dealing with some of the more
substantial issues underlying this, we've spent all our time bickering
back and forth about whether or not it should happen, and how many
should be added, etc.

Of course, this comes off as a new-gTLD advocate (which I am) saying
that the new-gTLD opposition should give in and stop resisting, and
to a certain degree, and there's some truth to that.  Recent history
has demonstrated that every time the issue has come up, the majority
of the effort has been on one or the other side of adding the new gTLDs,
and not spent on more substantive issues.

Unless someone can convince me that there will never be a new gTLD
added to the roots, I remain convinced that much of the effort spent
in resisting the inexorable expansion of the TLDs in the roots would
be better focussed on ensuring that the new registr[y|ar] systems
are sound and reasonable.

I would have liked to focus on some of this myself, but found myself
battling the monied participants' desire to severely limit expansion
or prevent it altogether.

-- 
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