Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: CONSENSUS CALL

["Keith Gymer" <keith.gymer@btinternet.com>]

I also vote "No."

Comment:
I suspect that the idea that any of the 6-10 new gTLDs can simply be treated
as
"testbeds" is essentially an illusion, and agree with Kevin's perspective on
the present proposal.
To have a genuine "testbed" or "proof of concept" I would prefer 2-3 max,
with at least one of these set up
for reserved SLDs (i.e. registration would be at the THIRD level) to test
out all these undifferentiated TLDs that CORE et al have claimed there is a
demand for (eg. we could "test" .web.[new] .store.[new] .firm.[new] etc etc
without losing the first level domain immediately.  Likewise we could test
out a structured gTLD, similarly provided with reserved structure at the SLD
level (eg. bank.dir airline.dir pharmacy.dir etc etc)


----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin J. Connolly <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>
To: <wg-c@dnso.org>
Sent: 09 December 1999 15:37
Subject: Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: CONSENSUS CALL


> No.  6-10 is both too many and too few.  It's too many for a proof of
> concept (3 would be ideal for that purpose).  It's too few to prevent
> the lucky few to whom the zones are delegated from reminding us
> what the sybil said of the child, Gaius Julius Caesar:  in this scheme,
> I see many NSIs.
>
> Verbum sap.
> Kevin J. Connolly