From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #95 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Monday, April 24 2000 Volume 01 : Number 095 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:28:13 -0500 From: dwmaher@ibm.net Subject: Re: [wg-c] Tuesday's NC meeting Jon: I concur in your proposal to disband WG-C for the reasons you mentioned. You have earned our gratitude and respect for undertaking an extremely difficult job and doing it very professionally and very well. If all the participants had exhibited the patience and restraint that you showed, the consensus certainly would have been much stronger and might even have been sufficiently strong to convince NC. David Maher At 11:57 PM 4/20/00 -0400, you wrote: > Here is a brief summary of the portions of the Names Council > meeting on >Tuesday most relevant to WG-C. The NC began by taking two straw polls. In ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 18:26:22 -0700 From: Simon Higgs Subject: [wg-c] FYI: Slashdot If anyone is interested, Slashdot has an article (with feedback) on the NSI Proposal. Based upon the feedback, other TLDs are much more popular. http://slashdot.org/articles/00/04/21/1716244.shtml Best Regards, Simon - -- Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people, and Fools argue. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 23:04:15 -0400 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] for the NC Elisabeth -- Yet again (and probably for the last time), I'd be grateful if you could forward this message to the Names Council. Thanks. Jon - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- To the Names Council: This message is to convey my recommendation that Working Group C be thanked and disbanded. For three reasons, I don't think it makes sense for us to continue work. First, we've run out of time. Now that you've sent your recommendation on new gTLDs to the Board, it's the job of ICANN staff to draw up implementation documents, for public comment, so that the Board can take action in Yokohama. I understand that Louis Touton has advised that you should complete your recommendations within a month if ICANN staff are to be able to take them fully into account. There isn't sufficient time, in one month, for Working Group C to reach further consensus recommendations and for you to approve those recommendations after a three-week period of public comment. Second, if we were to do additional work, I'm not sure on what basis we'd proceed. The approach of the working group has been to build on past consensus points in crafting new ones. For some time, those past consensus points have included a rough consensus in favor of an initial deployment of six to ten new gTLDs followed by an evaluation period. Your recent deliberations, however, suggest that you may not consider that a reliable foundation on which to build further work. Finally, we're all tired. (I know I am.) I think the vast majority of the members of the working group have shown tremendous, admirable willingness to engage, and to compromise, on the important substantive issues. We've all learned from each other to a remarkable degree. At this point, though, I don't think we're going to get a lot more done. It's time for different bodies to move these issues forward. I'm deeply grateful to have had the opportunity to participate in this important endeavor. Jon Jonathan Weinberg co-chair, WG-C weinberg@msen.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 16:18:08 +0900 From: "Robert F. Connelly" Subject: Re: [wg-c] for the NC At 23:04 21-04-2000 -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > This message is to convey my recommendation that Working Group C be >thanked and disbanded. For three reasons, I don't think it makes sense for >us to continue work. Dear Jonathan: I agree and I also agree that you've done a fabulous job dealing with such diverse interests. My profound thanks. Personal regards, BobC ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 09:48:18 +0200 (MET DST) From: Elisabeth Porteneuve Subject: [wg-c] Re: for the NC > > Elisabeth -- > > Yet again (and probably for the last time), I'd be grateful if you could > forward this message to the Names Council. > > Thanks. > > Jon ==> Jon, It is Saturday, Easter weekend morning here. I connected to check the situation before I take three days off and travel for familial weekend. Let me express here my personal thanks to you for everything: extremely professional work, your curtesy, being always on time, understanding different cultures (when they dare to express themselves), and adding the dignity to the debate. Elisabeth > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To the Names Council: > > This message is to convey my recommendation that Working Group C be > thanked and disbanded. For three reasons, I don't think it makes sense for > us to continue work. > > First, we've run out of time. Now that you've sent your recommendation on > new gTLDs to the Board, it's the job of ICANN staff to draw up > implementation documents, for public comment, so that the Board can take > action in Yokohama. I understand that Louis Touton has advised that you > should complete your recommendations within a month if ICANN staff are to > be able to take them fully into account. There isn't sufficient time, in > one month, for Working Group C to reach further consensus recommendations > and for you to approve those recommendations after a three-week period of > public comment. > > Second, if we were to do additional work, I'm not sure on what basis we'd > proceed. The approach of the working group has been to build on past > consensus points in crafting new ones. For some time, those past consensus > points have included a rough consensus in favor of an initial deployment of > six to ten new gTLDs followed by an evaluation period. Your recent > deliberations, however, suggest that you may not consider that a reliable > foundation on which to build further work. > > Finally, we're all tired. (I know I am.) I think the vast majority of > the members of the working group have shown tremendous, admirable > willingness to engage, and to compromise, on the important substantive > issues. We've all learned from each other to a remarkable degree. At this > point, though, I don't think we're going to get a lot more done. It's time > for different bodies to move these issues forward. > > I'm deeply grateful to have had the opportunity to participate in this > important endeavor. > > Jon > > > Jonathan Weinberg > co-chair, WG-C > weinberg@msen.com > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 17:38:18 +0100 From: "Siegfried Langenbach" Subject: Re: [wg-c] for the NC Jon, thank you for your excellent work. siegfried On 21 Apr 00, at 23:04, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > > > To the Names Council: > > This message is to convey my recommendation that Working Group C be > thanked and disbanded. For three reasons, I don't think it makes sense for > us to continue work. > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 08:57:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Rick H Wesson Subject: [wg-c] disbanding Jon, Thanks for all the work and effort, I think you did and excellent job of managing a group on a difficult subject. I agree that wg-c should be disbanded. before we go, I would like to propose a new wg, one that would produce a report of the effect of sharing the current gTLDs and the registration environment. If we are to evaluate the effect of adding additional gTLDs, it would be a good thing to have a baseline for the comparison. I doubt the report would be as controversial as wg-c has been and since there has been no real evaluation of the impact of the ICANN test-bed on com/net/org a review would be benificitial. comments? thanks, - -rick ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 00:51:14 -0300 From: Raul Echeberria Subject: Re: [wg-c] Tuesday's NC meeting At 19:28 21/04/00 -0500, dwmaher@ibm.net wrote: >Jon: > I concur in your proposal to disband WG-C for the reasons you >mentioned. > You have earned our gratitude and respect for undertaking an >extremely difficult job and doing it very professionally and very well. If >all the participants had exhibited the patience and restraint that you >showed, the consensus certainly would have been much stronger and might >even have been sufficiently strong to convince NC. > David Maher I sign it. Raul Echeberria raul@inia.org.uy ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #95 *************************