RE: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 16-Mar-2000 Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote:
> We most certainly disagree. You stating these things also does not make it
> so. It is only your opinion. I recognise that you are an uncompromising
> person, but then many here are.

Roeland, if anything I have said is factually incorrect, please point it out.

This is more than just opinion.  IANA did not have the authority to grant for
new gTLDs.  

What do you disagree with specifically?  If we can identify our areas of
disagreement and the basis for them, it would certainly be more helpful than
just accusing people of being "uncompromising." 

I'm actually quite compromising.   My own view is that there is no need for a
"test bed" and that indeed the whole concept of the test bed is flawed, without
enough of a disincentive for ICANN to stop adding new gTLDs after the testbed
gTLDs are added.  But in the interest of compromise and moving forward
(progress I think it is called by some) I've supported that proposal, in the
hopes that what I fear will not occur or that there will be sufficient
opposition to ICANN stopping the process that it will help to prevent them from
doing so.

But facts can't be compromised on.  There is simply no reason to give those
people advanced standing.    There is every reason in the world not to.

Let's go over them:

1) It unfairly prejudices proposals originating from people who elected NOT to
go outside the processes and to work within the process to acheive the goal of
new gTLDs

2) It rewards people for acting outside the process and going off on their own
without any regard for the process


By giving them no advanced standing they have to qualify on their merits and
their merits alone.   This ensures that the best choices are made, and not that
someone who decided to go off on their own gets a shot above someone with a
bettter proposal simply because they refused to wait and get an official
sanction for their activity.

- --
William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
http://userfriendly.com/
Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux)
Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/

iD8DBQE40Gb18zLmV94Pz+IRAgg3AKCOriX1CdRPCez6JP1HSZVlH1yoNACfQj71
KvOijspX0cQBXW16EwY8LYg=
=iDx7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----