Re: [wg-c] Trying to close on Question 1

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 21 August 1999, Javier SOLA <javier@aui.es> wrote:


>Jonathan,
>
>Here is an attempt to compromise:
>
>>	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.
>
>>  Notwithstanding all of these comparisons, I think we still
>>should try to find the formulation that best expresses the consensus of
>>the group
>
>Options 1 and 2 have something in common: there is a first stage in which a
>few domains are deployed and then an evaluation. 
>
>How many people would oppose expressing this result in the report of WG C
>in the following way:
>
>"There is rough consensus on having an evaluation period after the
>deployment of a first few gTLDs. There is no consensus on wether, after
>this period: 1) An action of ICANN Board or the DNSO is necessary to
>continue deployment or; 2) An action of ICANN Board or the DNSO is
>necessary to stop the deployment plan. XX% of the members of the WG support
>option 1) while YY% support option 2). We do not claim consensus on this
>second issue."

What is the "evaluation period"?  Which gTLDs?  Which registries?  Which
registrars?

I can't accept this.  It's the same thing everyone who's been against
adding anything other than a handful of gTLDs has been trying to achieve
since we began.  It's not compromise, it's reporting that position, plus
a few numbers.

Besides, that was a "straw poll", and was not meant to be used as any
official determination of consensus.

-- 
Mark C. Langston	     			Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org				     http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin					    http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA					     http://www.dnso.org