RE: [wg-b] RE: [wg-c] URGENT: Moratorium on all additions to con

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

On 22-Nov-99 Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> William, I think you know, but perhaps not, that AT&T has been involved
> since the initial ideas of the POC/CORE; green paper, etc.  So, we've
> invested time and resources for a few years... like you and others...

That was why the characterization was amusing.
 
> We still believe, however, that we need to recognize that this working
> group
> will continue to have new players join in and the process of the working
> groups is supposed to be able to accommodate that. 

There will ALWAYS be new people who "discover" the process.  That is not a
reason to continue delaying.  The responsibility for getting up to speed
in the process is with the person getting involved, not for the entire
process to stop, slow down, etc, to accomodate them.  If we do that, we
may as well just all go home, because we will NEVER move forward.
 
> I understand that you believe this process has been long.  And, perhaps
> it
> has. But as I said in my comments about the NSI contract, competition
> isn't
> built in a day.  Successh and stability have to be the goals, even if it
> takes more time. 

That time has been spent and is passing.  Delays must have valid reasons
for them.  There is no valid reason for continuing to delay.  We have
spent years hashing out the same tired old arguments, new names
occasionally, but when you get right down to it, it is the same people at
the polar points that are spear heading the main positions.  They just add
some more voices of support to their side.  

What exactly would you like to see studied before action is taken that
hasn't already been done by the NTIA, the FTC, by US here and in numerous
other forums?
 
> Certainly, talking and speculating about new gTLDs has gone on for some
> time. But a critical analysis of how small businesses would be educated
> and
> made aware of any new gTLDs, along with ISPs and other intermediaries,
> hasn't been discussed on any group I've participated in.  I believe that
> Eric Menge, of the SBA, at the L.A. meeting noted the issues of ensuring
> SME
> awareness as a critical factor. 

And everytime this issue gets close to being resolved, there will always
be someone crying that there is another area to be studied more.  It is a
tired old argument.  The SBA is fully aware of this process, and indeed
has already been making comments on the ICANN process and being rather
adapt at getting up to speed on their own.  I've been quite impressed with
what they have presented already, and don't see any reason to delay things
to give them more time, and I doubt they would want to be seen as a reason
for someone proposing that this process be delayed any longer.  Being a
part of the Dept. of Commerce, they have been in a unique position to be a
part of this process, and have shown the initiative in doing that already.

Let's get down to it!  If there is something new, Marilyn, let's see it. 
If it isn't substantial, then it really shouldn't be an impediment to
progress on this issue.  "What might be" or "what could be" is just
theoretical nonsense without something substantive to back it up.  There
will always be those types of questions and issues no matter how many more
YEARS we spend on this issue.

People have been preaching caution since this process started, but CORE
and the CORE supporters, weren't preaching caution when they thought they
could force their way into root over 2 years ago and were issuing press
releases on how their new TLDs would be available in the roots soon.  

You will never be able to accomodate all the concerns of all of the
people, and if you try to do that, you will never acheive anything.

It's time to move forward, and stop putting blockades up that only impede
progress.

--
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934