[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-c] Straw Vote
>QUESTION ONE: HOW MANY NEW gTLDS, AND HOW FAST?
>Option 1: Without 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.
>Option 2: ICANN should implement a plan contemplating the
>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.
It is not known what the actual limits to DNS TLD name space size are,
within current DNS technology. There is strong consensus among the DNS
technical community that we are not currently near the limit, but there is
considerable difference of opinion about the likely limit.
Given that the DNS is essential to Internet operations, efforts to modify
the DNS (administration and/or operations) require considerable prudence.
Prudent operations requires incremental change. Hence, Option 1 is
mandatory, in terms of responsible technical administration.
(To avoid any possible confusion, I'm voting for Option 1, but also saying
that this particular question isn't really subject to vote, since no
alternative to Option 1is operationally responsible.)
However, the specific question of how many TLDs to add in an increment, how
to evaluate the effect, and how long to wait for the next increment, are
all open items.
Option 2 is not mutually exclusive of Option 1. There is nothing wrong
with stating an intent to pursue the addition of relatively large numbers
of gTLDs, as permitted by administrative and operational experience and
limits. In fact, there is quite a bit RIGHT with stating such an
intent. However, stating the intent does not eliminate the requirement for
deciding how to increment the name space and who shall be permitted to
administer the new gTLDs, along with the other questions about numbers and
With respect to who has what burden of proof, there is a very large
difference between stating a generic (pun intended) goal and listing the
details for implementing the change. Absent considerable discussion about
details, it is not reasonable to make specific commitments about numbers or
dates, at this time.
In other words, the specific text for Option 2 is the first sentence and it
commits to pursuing a goal. I vote in favor of that goal.
However, the later commentary in the paragraph assigns burdens more
narrowly than is currently realistic. Operational prudence requires the
physician's "first do no harm" dictum, so that there is a continuing
burden, on those seeking change, to provide an adequate basis for believing
that the change is safe.
Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>