[wg-c] straw votes

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	A few thoughts:

	1. As Keith Gymer points out, the straw poll votes on Question One
don't say anything about the existence of consensus on that question in
the Internet community as a whole.  We're not equipped, in this working
group, to find that Internet-wide consensus.  Our immediate job, rather,
is to see if we can find rough consensus *within the working group*.
That's what working groups, in the IETF tradition, seek to do.  (Believe
me, the job is hard enough all by itself -- and I think the success of
IETF working groups proves that it's worth doing.)

	No working group can mirror the political or interest-group
breakdown of the larger community, and it would be hopeless to try.  As
chairs, Javier and I would breach our duty if we were to announce, as the
consensus of the group, a position that we thought reflected the "real"
views of the Internet community at large but that didn't have consensus
support within the WG itself.

	What I think the straw vote showed is that neither option one nor
option two, standing alone, has consensus support *within the working
group*.  Therefore we're not going to be able to report either position to
the NC as the consensus view of the WG.  In default of that, we have two
options: (1) to submit a report to the NC explaining that no proposal on
the "how many, how fast" issue had consensus support within the WG, and
detailing the opposing views; or (2) to find a new (compromise?) position
on the issue that *can* command rough consensus within the WG.

	2. Werner Staub urges that many list members who didn't vote for
option one would find that approach preferable to adding no new gTLDs at
all.  I think that's so; but I think there may be less to that than meets
the eye.  Some list members who didn't vote for option two might find that
approach preferable to adding no new gTLDs.  Many list members who didn't
vote for option two would find it preferable to adding fifty new gTLDs on
Day One.  Notwithstanding all of these comparisons, I think we still
should try to find the formulation that best expresses the consensus of
the group; and I think the straw vote results suggest that the midpoint of
the group, at least, lies somewhere between option one and option two.
Some posts have begun to explore possible new formulations, and we need to
do a lot more of that before we'll be ready to formulate any new options
to vote on.

	3. Rod Dixon stated that in his view the options I listed for
Questions Two through Four didn't cover the full range of our discussions.
That's my failure; I did my best to cover all of the positions that had
been advocated in our discussions, in as fair a manner as I could.  When
you vote on Questions Two through Four (voting ends at midnight EDT next
Wednesday), if none of the options I listed reflects your views, PLEASE
explain what your views are and vote for those.  The point here, after
all, is to find out what the WG members actually think.  I don't want my
attempt to formulate the competing options to get in the way of that.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, WG-C
weinberg@msen.com