[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-c] voting on TLDs
In case that you may have missed it, I have already agreed to the consensus
for adding a limited number of initial TLDs, for exactly this reason. In
fact my WG-C submission of last October was exactly a start on such a
vetting requirements process.
IMHO, if we'd have spent time on that, rather than argueing whether or not
to do it, we'd be much firther along. Since then, the Sheppard document has
also been presented. It is also a good effort. we need to spend more time on
it, rather than this argument.
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 9:08 AM
Cc: 'Karl Auerbach'; 'wg-c'
Subject: RE: [wg-c] voting on TLDs
At 08:08 AM 3/12/00 -0800, Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote:
>I would say that a proper vetting process is a better answer than simply
>adding them slowly. Reduced rate of new TLD additions is no assurance of
By itself, reduced rate does not guarantee the outcome. You are quite
What reduced rate does afford is the time to consider, review and modify
structures and processes intended to guarantee the outcome.
For example, simply deciding that a proper vetting process is the key is
not enough. It must be specified and consensus on the design must be
developed. Design of a such a process is far from straightforward and the
first version will not be sufficiently correct. Only through incremental
review and modification can it be refined.
If there is a flood of new TLDs, then there will be no time or basis for
changing the process, since too many new TLDs will have been brought in
under the early and unrefined version of the process.
Hence, staged introduction of new TLDs permits a learning curve on the
Dave Crocker <email@example.com>
Brandenburg Consulting <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA