Re: [wg-c] Our mission

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	With respect, I think this is badly wrong on a variety of counts.

	1. The compromise proposal that ICANN should begin by deploying 6-10 new
gTLDs, followed by an evaluation period, not only was the basis of rough
consensus *before* the interim report came out; it was also reaffirmed by a
formal vote in the working group *after* the interim report.  Although the
margin was narrow, the proposal secured the necessary supermajority.  If
the working group is to have any chance of making progress, it doesn't make
sense to keep trying to reopen issues we have already resolved.

	2. The reference to a "testbed" does not mean that the new gTLDs will be
withdrawn if problems emerge.  They will not.  Rather, the idea is that the
rollout of 6-10 will allow ICANN to evaluate the consequences of deploying
that initial set of gTLDs, in order to inform its decision whether there
should be any further deployment, and if so on what timetable and in what
manner.

	3. The sense of the NC, in its most recent meeting, was that this WG,
*before the Cairo meeting,* should report its conclusions to date, so that
the NC could take appropriate action in Cairo.  Accordingly, I'll post, in
the next couple of days, a draft report summarizing those conclusions, for
comment by the list.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, WG-C
weinberg@msen.com


At 09:54 AM 2/23/00 +0100, you wrote:
>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