FW: [wg-d] Interim measures: second thoughts

[Theresa Swinehart <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>]

Forwarding, got bounced the first time.

Theresa



Date:	Tue, 07 Sep 1999 19:18:20 -0400
To:	Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, wg-d@dnso.org
From:	Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>
Subject:	Re: [wg-d] Interim measures: second thoughts
	In-Reply-To:	<m11ORYf-0008G4C@rip.psg.com>
	References:	<Pine.BSI.4.05L.9909071535070.21854-100000@conch.msen.com>
	Mime-Version:	1.0
	Content-Type:	text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
	Content-Transfer-Encoding:	8bit
	X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by dnso.dnso.org id
BAA23046

I wrote:
>> not enough of the WG members are willing to compromise.  (In particular-
>> in my personal opinion-some of the folks most interested in a
>> slow/sparse/highly controlled rollout seem unwilling to make even small
>> concessions.)  On that basis, I'm willing to agree with Javier that
option
>> (v) is our only realistic choice.

and, at 01:09 PM 9/7/99 -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
>amazingly enough, the folk of the slow/cautious opinion say very similar
>things about your position ('interesting' that a co-chair has a position).
>as the general net.wisdom is that the slow/... can later be changed to a
>faster rollout, but not vice verse, it would seem that a compromise may be
>possible, even if it is not one you prefer.


1.	Before I joined WG-C, I had developed some views about gTLD expansion.
That's not unusual: Like most of us, I've been thinking about these issues
for a while.  After joining WG-C, I expressed some of my views in posts to
the list.  Later on, we had an election for co-chair, and I was elected.
Since then, from time to time, I've posted messages to the list setting out
my personal views (though much less than I had before the election).  I
haven't urged my personal views in messages where I've been wearing my
co-chair hat.  Indeed, when I was pushing for a compromise on "how many, how
fast" just now, I noted that the proposal did *not* reflect my personal
views, but that I was urging the group to adopt it anyway because I thought
it was our best shot at consensus.
2.	Here's some brief background on the recent WG-C discussions of the "how
many, how fast" issue:  A while back, it became clear in WG-C that we had
strongly different views on this matter, with regard to both numbers and
process.  When we initially focused on numbers, some group members urged a
rollout of five to seven, as in the CORE plan, while others urged a rollout
of dozens or even hundreds.  Another person urged that the rollout be one to
three; she later explained that the initial rollout should be just one.

When we moved on to a slightly more sophisticated focus on process, about
half the list members responding to a straw poll agreed with the position
that "[w]ithout regard to whether it would be desirable to have many gTLDs
in the long term, ICANN should proceed now by adding only a few, and then
pausing for evaluation.  Only after assessing the results should it initiate
any action to add more."  Just under a third of the respondents expressed
support for this opposing position: "ICANN should implement a plan
contemplating the authorization of many new gTLDs over the next few years.
(Example: ICANN might plan to authorize up to 10-12 new registries, each
operating 1-3 new gTLDs, each year, for a period of five years; each year's
authorizations would be staggered over the course of the year.) This option
would place the burden on opponents, if evidence comes in demonstrating that
additional new gTLDs are a bad idea or that the rollout is too fast, to
bring that evidence to ICANN's attention and call for a halt or a slowdown."
Other people expressed views that I characterized in my report to the list
as "neither/both."
It seemed to me, pretty recently, that we were at a point at which the WG
might be able to arrive at a compromise between these positions.  In working
out what such a compromise might consist of, I concluded that no proposal
could gain consensus unless it incorporated a first round followed by an
evaluation period.  It seemed to me, though, that in return for the other
side giving ground and agreeing to this, there might be some room to tweak
the "how many in the first round?" issue.  I proposed that ICANN begin with
a first round of 6-10 new gTLDs followed by an evaluation period.  This is
very close to the IAHC plan, and I expected that the "fast rollout" crowd
would have a lot of problems with it - that they would see it not as
compromise at all, but as capitulation to the "go slow" folks.  But it
seemed to me that if a critical, central mass of the WG was to come to any
agreement on the "how many, how fast" question, that this was about what the
agreement would amount to.
I got three sets of reactions.  First, some people simply signed on.  These
included a majority of the "neither/both" crowd, with heaviest
representation from the registrar and noncommercial constituencies.  Second,
there was a wary set of questions from the "fast rollout" folks -neither
accepting nor rejecting the proposal out of hand, but wanting to know more
about what the proposal meant, and how the other side would react.  Third, a
number of folks in the trademark, business and ccTLD constituencies rejected
the proposal out of hand as expansive and uncontrolled.
That's the core of the history underlying my statement, in my earlier
message, that in my view "some of the folks most interested in a
slow/sparse/highly controlled rollout seem unwilling to make even small
compromises."  It does seem to me that the proposal called for only a small
compromise from that side, while calling for a large compromise from the
other.  I'm not addressing, here, the question of which side's position is
more nearly sound as a matter of Internet engineering.  But I think that on
the issue of "willingness to compromise," my statement is only too true.
Jon

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