[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Comment-Dnso] [Fwd: Report on Working Group C - [Attention Jonathan Weinberg and Esther Dyson]]



--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

---- Begin included message ----
Kent and all,

  I would strongly disagree with Kent and Jonathan's tally as presented
by Jonathan in his post, http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Archives/msg01037.html
to which Kent refers.  I do so as I have the proxies of all of our [INEGroup]
members, and I voted for them, per their request, for option 2 with
an amendment to the wording and posted that to the IFWP, Domain Policy
WG-C mailing list as such.  Hence I contend that Jonathan either did not
recognize this fact, or ignored it.  I will be happy to reproduce or copy
our post with our vote to that extent should clarification be required
or requested....

  OF Note:  The archives to the ga@dnso.org and WG-C are not excepting
my and others posts, which I have repeatedly reported to the DNSO Admin
and webmaster@dnso.org on 8 occasions, as well as to this list....
I believe that others have also made note of this inconsistency as well...
See: IFWP and DNSO archives fro further reference...

Kent Crispin wrote:

On Sun, Aug 22, 1999 at 05:34:59PM -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
> Report on Working Group C (New gTLDs)
>
> Milton Mueller, Syracuse University School of Information
> Studies

Unfortunately, Mr Muellers summary is "economical in its accuracy":

> QUESTION ONE: HOW MANY NEW gTLDS, AND HOW FAST?
>
> 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 (1-5), and then pausing for evaluation.  Only
> after assessing the results should it initiate any action to add
> more.
>
> Option 2: ICANN should create a plan contemplating the
> authorization of many new gTLDs over the next few years.
> Introduction of new gTLDs would still be gradual, but this
> option would pre-announce a target and continue adding them
> unless there was evidence that additional new gTLDs are a bad
> idea or that the rollout is too fast.
[...]
> *******end of options description*****
>
> A straw poll has been completed on Question 1. The working group
> was evenly divided between those who favored Option 2 and those
> who did not.

This is a flagrant, serious, and deliberate misrepresentation of the
facts.

In fact the results were *quite* different than Mueller says:
out of 44 votes,  22 voted for option 1 and 13 voted for
option 2.  7 voted "neither / both / in between / other"; and 2 said
we should focus on the .us domain.  (*)

That is:

Option 1:         50%
Option 2:         30%
Neither/both etc: 16%
Fix .us:           5%

In a contest between option 1 and option 2, 63% favored option 1, and
37% favored option 2.

There is no way this can be interpreted as Mueller suggests:

> The working group
> was evenly divided between those who favored Option 2 and those
> who did not.

(*) Jonathan Weinberg's official results, at
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Archives/msg01037.html

--
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain

---
You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: Jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1799I@lyris.isoc.org

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
 

---- End included message ----