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

["Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>]

>
"Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@ebarn.com> wrote: (09/14/99 12:51PM)
>
>
>> Does anyone really think that floating test TLDs that have no semantic
>> content at all is a meaningful test of anything?  There are at least some
>> potential applicants for SLD names whose interest is a function of the
>> differentiation of the name space.  If all we're doing is creating room for
>> new SLDs which are as indistinguishable from the existing sets as
>> 800, 888, and 877 phone numbers are from each other, then the exercise
>> has been a waste of time and we should own up to it.
>>
>
>Depending on what our goals for the test-bed are, rgTLDs (really generic
>TLDs) can be extremely useful. They will allow us to quickly and effectively
>judge the technical and operation impact of a multiple gTLD registry
>scenario, while at the same time allowing the participants to easily
>repurpose their infrastructure when the testbed ends. Further, it minimizes
>(or perhaps even eliminates) IODs concerns about restraint of trade.

I do not believe that the constant harping and threatening behavior of a 
single participant has the slightest bearing on the consensus of the WG;
and I do not believe that such concerns should have an impact on this
WG's recommendations.  Concerns about restraint of trade will probably 
have an impact on ICANN's final policy, but they should not color our take on
the questions whether there should be new gTLDs, how many there should be,
and how to roll them out.

>
>In my mind this allows everyone to achieve their stated objectives without
>miring the process with overwhelming political and legal concerns.
>

What about the objective of ascertaining the acceptance of/demand for new
gTLDs?  Doesn't the marketplace have some impact on whether there should
be new gTLDs and how many there should be?

>As far as SLD registrants go, they can be easily and effectively simulated
>for the purpose of the test-bed. 

If the sole concern is beta-testing the registration systems, then I think we're
engaging in an exercise in futility.  Why in heaven's name should registries
obtain our assistance and support in assuring that their systems actually work?
When did this WG take on the role of configuring a beta test for the registration
systems?  Under the proposed approach, instead of setting policy, we're 
assisting these companies in receiving a gift of services.

>All major software companies do this with
>new product releases - they use beta testers to simulate real customers.
>

This really does go from bad to worse.  And we _still_ don't know the extent
to which this WG is or is not about to be prorogued by ICANN and/or the NC,
which really does render the whole exercise more than a little surreal.

KJC

**********************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
**********************************************************************