RE: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C

[Jean-Michel Becar <Jean-Michel.Becar@etsi.fr>]

Sorry for not having replying before, but you know sometimes travels get
difficult to write emails.

So I fully support all Jon said in that message...

I just want to know who will write the position paper for the 1rst
October????


Jean Michel Bécar
E.T.S.I. Project Manager
Tel:	+33 (0)4 92 94 43 15
Fax:	+33 (0)4 92 38 52 15
GSM:	+33 (0)6 82 80 19 31
www.etsi.org
becar@etsi.fr









> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:weinberg@mail.msen.com]
> Sent: 17 September 1999 16:58
> To: wg-c@dnso.org; javier@aui.es
> Cc: baf@fausett.com; Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com
> Subject: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C
> 
> 
> 	This is a long message, but all of it is important.  It includes
> three major items: the production schedule for the WG-C 
> interim report, a
> limitation on posts to the WG-C list, and rough consensus on 
> the "6-10"
> proposal.
> 
> 	1. Working Group D has submitted its report on how best to move
> our process forward, and the Names Council has approved the
> recommendations in that report.  You can find the report at
> <http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990914.WGDreport-to-NC.html>.  It
> concludes:
> 
> WG-C, as currently constituted, with its current leadership, is in a
> position to find compromise, consensus solutions to at least 
> part of the
> problem if left to find its own way. The recommendations by WG-D are
> intended to move this process forward, and ensure ability for all
> interested parties to participate.
> 
> 	2. Javier and I have discussed how best to implement the
> recommendations in the WG-D report, and have agreed on the following
> items.  First, Working Group C will issue an *interim report* 
> on October
> 15, 1999.  That interim report will include position 
> statements, written
> by proponents of the various positions advocated within the 
> WG, explaining
> and advancing their positions. The drafting of the 
> statements, we believe,
> will both help focus the group's thinking and allow us to 
> receive comments
> from the larger Internet community.
> 
> 	In order to make the October 15 deadline, we will have to adhere
> to a very tight schedule.  It will look like this:
> 
> October 1 -- WG members must submit initial drafts of 
> position papers.  
> We encourage drafters to include these items: an abstract of 
> the proposal,
> summarizing the drafters' position and recommendations; a 
> clear statement
> of the proposal and its rationale; an analysis of who and what systems
> would be affected; a specific implementation plan; a discussion of the
> costs and risks of the proposal; and a discussion of the proposal's
> support in the various stakeholder communities.  Drafters, 
> however, are
> free to develop statements in the form they think best.
> 
> October 1 to October 8 -- During this period, we encourage 
> the proponents
> of each position paper (1) to revise their arguments and positions in
> light of the arguments and positions in the other position 
> papers; and (2)
> to seek additional signers from the rest of the WG.  We 
> anticipate that
> position paper drafters may end up modifying their statements, to some
> degree, so as to get additional signers on board.
> 
> October 8  -- Revised drafts due.
> 
> October 15 -- the co-chairs submit the interim report, including an
> introduction drafted by the co-chairs.
> 
> 	Once the interim report is complete, it will be submitted for
> public comment. The overall process, in the words of the WG-D report,
> "will serve to clarify each group's respective position, 
> highlight areas
> of agreement and disagreement, uncover areas of technical or economic
> impracticality, and discern the public support for the 
> various positions."
> Those advances will lay the foundation for our final report.
> 
> 	This is an extremely tight timeframe; initial drafts of position
> papers are due *two weeks from today*.  So let's get going.
> 
> 	2. Effective tomorrow, everyone is limited to posting 
> no more than
> two messages to the list per day.  We are undertaking this 
> step for two
> reasons.  First, it should cut down on the high list volume that has
> discouraged many people from participating in the work of the list.
> Second, we hope that list members, as the WG-D report put it, 
> will "take
> care to make their two posts per day count - leaving unimportant or
> tangential things unsaid, and concentrating on making 
> substantive comments
> on the main issues before the group."
> 
> 	We trust that everyone will comply with this limitation without
> needing to be asked.  Nobody will moderate posts before they go to the
> list.  That means that it's the responsibility of each list 
> member to make
> sure that he or she doesn't violate the two-post-per-day rule 
> by accident
> or in an excess of enthusiasm.  If people should violate the 
> rule, they
> will be sanctioned by a warning followed by short-term 
> suspension from the
> list.  The ultimate sanction for violation is expulsion, 
> although I can't
> imagine that that will be necessary.
> 
> 	3. Javier and I have determined that, on the basis of 
> the messages
> submitted to the list, the "6-10" proposal is supported by rough
> consensus.  Of the views expressed to the list, more than 70% of those
> expressing a view were in favor.  That is, nineteen people expressed
> support, and seven expressed opposition.  The folks expressing support
> noted the following caveats: Four people urged that the 
> evaluation period
> should be short.  One emphasized that the rollout should 
> continue after
> the evaluation period so long as the initial addition goes well.  Two
> conditioned their support on the 6-10 new TLDs being run by 6-10 new
> registries, and one stated that at least four registries must 
> be included.
> 
> 	Five of the people expressing opposition urged that we should
> defer discussing the number of gTLDs until we resolve issues such as
> whether the new TLDs are to be special-purpose or 
> general-purpose.  Three
> urged that the initial rollout should be limited to 2-3 new gTLDs, and
> must be linked to the establishment of an effective and speedy ADR
> process, including protection of famous marks, and an easy and
> cost-effective system for obtaining contact information.  One 
> stated that
> only one new gTLD should be introduced at the outset.
> 
> 	Our determination of rough consensus, of course, *does not* mean
> that anybody is obligated to support the "6-10" proposal in 
> their position
> papers.  Javier and I do feel, however, that the discussion 
> on the list
> sends a clear message of support for the compromise proposal. 
>  We consider
> that an important development.
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
> Jonathan Weinberg
> co-chair, WG-C
> weinberg@msen.com
>