RE: [wg-b] WG-B Report

["Roeland Meyer \(E-mail\)" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Is this where we start the mutiny?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-b@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-b@dnso.org]On 
> Behalf Of Ellen
> Rony
> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 10:26 AM
> To: wg-b@dnso.org; Milton Mueller
> Subject: 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
> >many
> >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
> >member
> >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
> >that
> >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.