Re: [wg-c] Straw Vote

[Richard Lindsay <richard@interq.ad.jp>]

Greetings,

With regard to Question 1:

> QUESTION ONE: HOW MANY NEW gTLDS, AND HOW FAST?

I would chose Option 1, as the operationally safer way to start.

I would hope that Option 2's end goal of implementing many new
gTLD's would then be seen as realizable, and ICANN would move to
a more agressive phase.
 
> 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 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.

With regard to the issue of taking straw polls or votes, I would 
favor more, and more frequent, attempts at polling the group, rather
than assuming that the barrage on the lists reflects the true opinion
of all participants.

Best regards,
Richard
-- 
_/_/_/interQ Incorporated
_/_/_/System Division
_/_/_/Director and General Manager
_/_/_/Richard A. S. Lindsay