Re: [wg-c] Our mission

["Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>]

The rallying call of 6-10 names of which Milton has reminded us is a little
overstated (and from a surprising source considering Milton's greater vision
of hundreds of names). The interim reports states "the working group had
reached rough (although by no means unanimous) consensus" by which it refers
to 19 for and 7 against.

The choice of a specific number of gTLDs is laced with a set of assumptions
(and implied future exclusions) about the future DNS which the interim
report did not satisfactorily explore most notably the consequences of
failure of the test - "Sorry guys here's your money back we are withdrawing
all these 6 from the DNS".

The possibility of having a test is illusory. The proposal for 6-10 was not
a test bed but an expression of caution born out of an understandable
frustration to do something. It was a lose-lose compromise. It gives first
mover advantage to the new 6-10 and invests monopoly power in each of them.
It is a poor solution (even if all of them pass the nine principles).
How many is the wrong question for this group and it is regrettably that it
was in the groups overly-ambitious terms of reference. We should have
considered and rejected the question on day 1. We should be bold enough now
to decline to answer it - for which there will be considerable sympathy on
the NC.

Philip