Re: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises...

[Ann-Catherine Andersson <aca@telia.net>]

I agree to what have been discussed here, but what is further important is the
criteria for selecting registrys and the "roll out" period, which needs to be more
specified, with a testperiod etc...

Regards
--------------------------------------------------
Ann-Catherine Andersson  Telia Network Services
 +46-8 4568927  (PHONE)  Box 10707
 +46-8 4568935  (FAX)    121 29 Johanneshov
 aca@telia.net    SE
----------------------------------------------------


Jonathan Weinberg skrev:

>         I agree with much of what Petter says.
>
> 1) As Javier notes, we reached consensus long ago (in early to mid-July)
> that there should be new gTLDs.
>
> 2) ICANN is currently finishing work on a "cybersquatting" dispute
> resolution process.   Whether there should be a "famous marks" process is
> outside our jurisdiction, but that's fine; it just means that the
> desirability of such a process is one of the "details to be suggested by
> others" that Petter refers to.
>
> 3) This WG has discussed contact information issues only glancingly.
> Several folks have urged that such a system must exist, while Javier
> reposted a message from Michael Froomkin making the case that contact
> information availability should be limited in at least one TLD.  In any
> event, though, this is something we can talk about.
>
> 4 & 5) As I stated a couple of weeks ago, I agree that any proposal that
> can reach consensus in this WG will have to involve the rollout of a
> limited number of new gTLDs followed by an evaluation period.
>
>         I think we can do better, though.  So far, by my count, my compromise
> proposal for "6-10 new gTLDs followed by an evaluation period" has gotten
> expressions of support from 14 folks, and expressions of opposition from
> seven.  (Petter is one of the seven.)  While we're not there yet, I think
> that's awfully close to the sort of response that would justify a formal
> vote to determine whether there is rough consensus within the WG on this
> point.  (What counts, to my mind, in gauging whether there is a sufficient
> possibility of rough consensus to justify a vote, is the ratio of expressed
> support to expressed opposition.  As RFC 2418 puts it: "In general, the
> dominant view of the working group shall prevail. . . . Note that 51% of
> the working group does not qualify as ‘rough consensus' and 99% is better
> than rough.")
>
>         What do folks think?  (It would be especially good to hear from people who
> haven't already made their positions clear; it can be frustrating, in this
> WG, to figure out where the "silent majority" stands.)
>
> Jon
>
> Jonathan Weinberg
> co-chair, wg-c
> weinberg@msen.com
>
> At 09:23 AM 9/13/99 +0200, Petter Rindforth wrote:
> >Dear Javier and All others,
> >In a try to summarize the discussion so far, I would say that I see
> possibilities to reach a rough consensus on a few more items:
> >
> >1) There should be new gTLDs, provided that
> >
> >2) there are linked to a speedy and effective dispute resolution process
> (details to be suggested by others), and
> >
> >3) an easy and cost-effective system for obtaining full contact information
> >
> >4) there should be a limited number of new gTLDs to start with (some
> "how", "how many" and "which" questions remains to be answered),
> >
> >5) followed by an evaluation period ("how long", "what shall be
> evaluated", "by whom" and "for what purpuse" remains).
> >
> >INHO, this is the result of the work of this WG so far, but it is at least
> a starting point. I do not believe that we will be able to make consensus
> on all the remaining questions ("the details") but I do believe that we can
> all agree with the general idea listed above.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Petter
> >
> >-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> >Från: Javier <javier@aui.es>
> >Till: wg-c@dnso.org <wg-c@dnso.org>
> >Datum: den 12 september 1999 12:23
> >
> >>This group has reached full consensus on only one item: that there should
> >>be new gTLDs.
> >>
> >>Any further discussion of this issue only distracts the seach for consensus
> >>on other issues.
> >>
> >>Javier

--