Re: [wg-c] Trying to close on Question 1

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

> Two questions on substance:
> >*do* have "rough consensus on having an evaluation period after the
> >deployment of a first few gTLDs."  Option 2, as I drafted it, didn't
> >include an evaluation period at all.  It contemplated an orderly, phased
> 
> Exactly what would be evaluated?  It seems relevant to the proposition,

It would depend on the model of how to link registry to TLD chosen. Under a
scenario of licensed entities running the registry on behalf of ICANN under
a SRS system, then things to be evaluated would be:
-service
-ability to add new registrars
-stability
-reliability
-has it proven the possibility of swapping the whole database over to
 another entity in case of failure/disaster/being sacked?
-public acceptance/outcry

Just a few that come to mind in two seconds. I'm sure you could add in a
bunch more.

> >that persons who believed that the data coming in showed the planned
> >rollout to be too fast or too extensive could bring their concerns to ICANN
> >at any time.  The point is important, I think, because a plan calling for
> >deployment of a "few" gTLDs followed by an "evaluation period" gives a
> >specific decisional pressure point to the folks who believe that ICANN
> >ought to deploy only a few new gTLDs and then stop.
> 
> Exactly what does it mean to be "too fast or extensive?"
> We're dealing with competition in a market, right?

I agree. Somehow your client NSI seems to think that adding a load of
registrars right now for registrating com/net/org names is too fast, too
extensive, and is trying to put stops in there. As you are against this,
could you please talk to your client?

Yours, John Broomfield