[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C
Any WG member can write a position paper for October 1. (Any WG member
who thinks there's a significant chance that her or she won't be happy
supporting any of the other position papers *should* write one of his or
her own.) During the week ending October 8, the proponents of each of the
position papers submitted on October 1 will have the opportunity to revise
their statements. They'll presumably seek additional signers from the rest
of the WG, and they may end up modifying their statements, to some degree,
so as to get additional signers on board. To the extent that drafters of
different position papers end up merging their statements, or otherwise
finding common ground, that's great. (That is, it will look funny if we
have a really large number of position papers in the interim report, each
signed by only a few people. But each of you is the master of his or her
own position paper, and his or her own vote.)
Again, I apologize for the tight time-frame. It's forced on us, though,
by the NC's desire to see an interim report by Oct. 15.
At 01:42 PM 9/23/99 -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>I am writing the position paper for MHSC. I would hope to complete
>first-draft by the end of the week-end. The others will each write their
>own position papers. There will then follow a discussion/merging period.
>from which will flow one, or more, position papers representing WG-C
>This is my best understanding of the process. If I am misunderstanding
>something, please advise.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
>> Jean-Michel Becar
>> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 1999 1:19 PM
>> To: email@example.com
>> Subject: RE: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C
>> 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
>> 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
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>> > Sent: 17 September 1999 16:58
>> > To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
>> > Cc: email@example.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
>> > firstname.lastname@example.org