Re: [wg-c] Eureka?

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 4 August 1999, "Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com> wrote:


>I accuse myself of the sin of failing to parse the issues 
>and thereby engaging in fuzzy thinking.  Gomen nasai :-)
>
>There is a difference between the end stage steady 
>state of the DNS and the trip through the desert to 
>get there.

[...rest snipped...]

Kevin, this sounds good.  I guess my main concern with this
type of proposal is what (I think) I've been hearing Kent say, which
is:  We need to restrict ourselves to only saying "yes" to total 
expansion by a few gTLDs.

If I understand you correctly (and please correct me if I'm not),
you are not saying that, but are instead saying we say yes to a
LARGENUM of gTLDs and proceed according to a scheduled rollout, so
we don't have to walk this same path every so many months?

If that's the case, I would gladly support that.

-- 
Mark C. Langston	     			Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org				     http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin					    http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA					     http://www.dnso.org