Re: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

Dave Crocker wrote:

> >    I think if you identified the groups that would decide, they would
> >end up with decisions.
> 
> I agree, hence my statement of support for the basic idea, though the
> concerns that Brunner state are non-trivial and entirely valid.
> 
> >    If the non-commerical domain holders could choose 3, they would
> 
> The essential non-existence of that group as a functioning group is not a
> minor or subjective point.  Hence continuing to assert that they will make
> decisions, is much like the famous joke about finishing a complicated
> formula by saying "and then a miracle happens".
> 
> We need to be careful about designing things that have fragile,
> time-sensitive or unlikely dependencies.


   I  don't understand your comment.  There are groups in the
non-commerical domain group, including, for example, the American
Library Association, CPT, ACM, CDT, and lots of other groups.  I thought
the formal group already had more than 100 member organizations.  I was
at a meeting before Cairo that included these and other groups.

> >    For the voting proposal. ICANN does have a membership system. It is
> 
> It has the framework for one.  It does not have one that is
> functioning.  Hence your proposal pretty much assures that it will be
> nearly a year to get a set of names from the at large group.

   ICANN is proposing an election by this fall.

> > > >some other way.  Perhaps a lottery by those with "pioneer" proposals, or
> > >
> > > You would consider giving the rogue registry participants -- the folks who
> > > tried to replace the IANA DNS root system -- special position???
> >
> >     I've never taken a position on the "pioneer" or "rogue" registry
> >proposals.  I don't know enough about this to make an informed decision
> >one way or the other.  I'm not sure I want to.
> 
> Interesting perspective for someone proffered as a consumer advocate.  At
> any rate, please forgive the misunderstanding.
> 
> What DID you mean about 'a lottery by those with "pioneer" proposals'.

    Well, I'm not sure I follow your point.  I know that some have made
"pioneer" type claims.  They write me frequently.  Others seem to
consider these "rogues" apparently.  I don't know that much about the
history and merits of these arguments.  I suggested that ICANN could
provide one more TLDs by lottery to this group.  They could also provide
zero.  

   Your note above seems to suggest consumer advocates have some
obligation to wade into the "pioneer/rogue" disputes.  I'm not sure why
you say this.  Can't I avoid having to be an expert on everything?  

    Jamie


=======================================================
James Love, Director           | http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology | mailto:love@cptech.org 
P.O. Box 19367                 | voice: 1.202.387.8030
Washington, DC 20036           | fax:   1.202.234.5176
=======================================================