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

Re: [wg-b] WG-B Report

My understanding is that the Working Group B and C are now concluded.  The
WGB Report which presented biased support for an online proposal that was
engineered off the public list has been turned over the the NC and we all
have been thanked for playing in the WGB sandbox.

So to whom do we send our comments now?  Specific email addresses, please.

Milton Mueller wrote:

>In making comments on the WB-B report, I would urge all WG members, and all
>members of the public, to remember an important fact. The Names Council (NC)
>members do not care what the public comments say, nor do they care what
>consensus items are arrived at in the Working Groups.
>Yesterday, Mr. Sheppard voted against the long-established consensus item from
>WG-C calling for 6-10 new gTLDs. The WG report, as well as public comments,
>overwhelmingly supported that many new gTLDs or more. Thus, a WG can hold a
>vote on a consensus item three or four times, obtain 2/3 or more votes
>consistently, and make carefully crafted compromises designed to please as
>stakeholders as possible. This will not have any appreciable effect on the
>outcome of a vote on the NC.
>Voting on the NC takes place on strict "party line" basis, i.e., each NC
>votes for the particular interest of their constituency. Thus, yesterday, NC
>had a voting item, "is there a consensus on 6-10 new gTLDs?" The answer to
>question should have been obvious, because WG-C voted on it several times and
>it was put up for public comments. However, the members did not really vote on
>that question. They voted on the question: do I or the special interests in my
>constituency want 6-10 new TLDs?
>One of the NC members even made a pointed joke questioning how many members
>actually read the WG reports, much less the public comments.
>Keep this in mind as you prepare your comments.
>Philip Sheppard wrote:
>> At the Names Council meeting yesterday the status of the WG B report
>> submitted was explained to the NC by both Kathy Kleiman and myself. The
>> report will be posted for public comment.
>> In the meantime, the NC understands that the sunrise proposal has not been
>> fully discussed by WG B and the NC urges rapid discussion of this item with
>> a view to a report with an amended section on this item by May 10. That
>> report will be reviewed by the NC at a meeting probably taking place week
>> commencing May 15.

Ellen Rony                    //          http://www.domainhandbook.com
Co-author                  *="  ____ /            erony@marin.k12.ca.us
The Domain Name Handbook      \     )                  +1  415.435.5010
                              //   \\             "Carpe canine"

          The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.