[wg-c] Consensus vote

[Harold Feld <hfeld@mediaaccess.org>]

Hello.

"Rita M. Odin" wrote:

> Jonathan,
>
> First, let me say that I am sincerely sorry for your loss.
>
> Second, I am casting my official "no" vote:
>
> while I am not opposed to the addition of some new gTLDS in theory, I
am opposed to moving
forward with 6-10 new gTLDs at this point in time.
>

I again stress that, as I understand it, we are not talking about
suddenly adding
6-10 random TLDs tomorrow.  The consensus call is an attempt to move
forward
on a point of basic principle.

There are several very basic questions that have been raised that need
to be addressed.
The first is, will we have new TLDs ever?  There are folks who believe
we should have
no new TLDs, even if techncially feasible and if all other concerns can
be addressed.

The second question, of course, is how many.  I agree the "how many"
question
is more complex than the "ever at all" question, but it is an important
question to answer.
Again, it doesn't say "when."  It is worth asking, however, so that
after "when" is decided,
we know how many.

Indeed, the "how many" question is part of what will shape "when."

Frankly, there is something of a chicken and egg problem here: on the
one hand,
we have people who say we can't decide to go forward and how many until
we
have proper safeguards and assurances.  OTOH, we have people who say we
cannot set proper safeguards and assurances until we know how many TLDs.

This is why we proceed along multiple tracks with communiction between
tracks at
appropriate points.


>
> I think that there is a marked lack of concern on the part of some
factions participating in
this debate regarding the challenges and problems presently facing the
Internet community as
well as the impact (i.e., exacerbation of those problems) that the
addition of new gTLDs will
have.  I understand that this debate has been raging for years and
people are tired of hearing
the same concerns being raised and raised again. However, on the flip
side, although the
concerns are raised repeatedly, nothing has been done to address them.
There does not appear
to be any recognition (on the part of many of the players) that the
present system has real and
definable problems.  Nor has there been any attempt to solve those
problems until very
recently, and those attempts, while positive, are just baby steps.
>

Are there not other working groups working on these issues?  Isn't it
part of the role of
the names council and the GA to synthesize the concerns of the various
working groups
to create an integrated whole?

The idea that we must, in this working gorup, before we can agree on the
most basic of
principles
propose solutions to all conceivable problems, is a recipe for
paralysis.

This, of course, is part of the frustration, particularly for a rather
cynical inside the
beltway
type such as myself.  It is a well-known lobbying strategy to block
advancement on
an issue by creating such regulatory or legislative deadlock.  Whether
by accident or design,
I see the same dynamics playing out here: making the best the enemy of
the good and
crashing the system by playing its various functions against one
another.



>
> Before we exacerbate the problems we are experiencing with the current
system by adding 6 -
10 new gTLDs, we need to see how effective the UDRP and the
Anti-cybersquatting legislation are
at addressing some of the concerns raised.  Even if effective at
reducing cybersquatting, these
measures are not the end to the problems.  We have more work to do and
more issues to hammer
out (a famous names policy, a universal and reliable database of
registrants, etc.) before I
would feel comfortable adding new gTLDs.

Once again, these go to "when" not whether to have TLDs at all or, if
yes to new TLDs, how
many.
These concerns are being addressed in other working groups.  What evil
will result by
having a system ready to implement once your concerns are addressed?

To pick on the RBOCs this time (since I picked on AT&T last time), this
is rather
like saying we need to have a full list of UNEs, including issues like
sub-loop
unbundling, all worked out in advance and agreed upon before we can even
begin
to discuss the principle of colocation in the central office.

Harold