[wg-c] getting work done, versus not

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>]

Josh,

I anticipated such a response, but hoped there was substance behind your 
comment.

This working group is supposed to produce solutions.  Having participants 
raise theoretical issues, with no foundation and no resolution, is a superb 
way to ensure that we continue to fail in our assigned task.

It is not enough to participate with good intention.  What counts is 
actually producing results.

There are always "what if" challenges to proposals.  An infinite 
number.  There is no benefit in pursuing every single "what if" that 
someone raises, unless the goal is infinite academic discussion.

It is long past time for this working group to stop treating its activities 
as an exercise in theoretical politics and, instead, worry about serving 
DNS users with new gTLDS.

There is a working DNS with a long history.  We need to stop trying to 
invent everything from scratch and, instead, focus on formalizing and 
enhancing ESTABLISHED practise.

With nearly 15 years of history, the DNS has plenty of established 
practise.  Pretending otherwise is, again, a good way to ensure making no 
progress.

d/

At 06:48 AM 3/17/00 -0800, Josh Elliott wrote:
>I really don't know - creativity is not my strong suit, but I don't want us
>restricting others from finding ways to construct alternative competitive
>models.
>
> > From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com]
> > To: jelliott@tucows.com
> > Cc: William X. Walsh; Rick H Wesson; wg-c@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [wg-c] application documents requirements
> >
> > At 05:54 AM 3/17/00 -0800, Josh Elliott wrote:
> > >I do think, however, it is reasonable to assume there could be other
> > >competitive models other than a registry/registrar model.
> >
> > What examples do you have in mind?


=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA