Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: CONSENSUS CALL

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

I'm not sure one should count "conditional" supports.  It is either
support it as is, or not.

On 09-Dec-1999 Joseph Friedman wrote:
> Yes on adding 6-10 gTLDs, followed by an evaluation period.
> 
> --Joseph
> 
> On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> 
>>      I've not been doing much to move the list forward lately; I've been
>>      snowed
>> under by day- job demands and by illness in my family.  It does seem to
>> me,
>> though, that it's time to do something.  Here, therefore, is my attempt
>> to
>> get us off the dime.
>> 
>>      1. I've seen several folks, both in the "official" comments on the
>>      interim
>> report and otherwise, dispute whether we genuinely had rough consensus
>> within the WG on the 6-10 proposal.  The comments of Mike Heltzer of
>> INTA
>> are typical: "There has been no consensus — rough or otherwise — with
>> respect to new gTLDs.  There was no vote taken in WG-C.  Mr. Weinberg
>> has
>> drawn up the idea that there is consensus.  It is based on his own
>> notions,
>> nothing else."
>> 
>>      This continuing dispute is a bad thing.  As several people,
including
>>      both
>> Kent and Milton, stated in the physical meeting in LA, in order to make
>> progress we need to *build* on our achievements so far — including the
>> 6-10
>> compromise proposal.  I've got no doubt that we achieved rough
>> consensus
>> within the WG on that proposal back in September, for the reasons I set
>> out
>> in <http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc00/msg01794.html>.  I think
>> that
>> was a big step towards the WG coming together and actually generating
>> recommendations -- there likely won't be *any* new gTLDs added to the
>> legacy root unless we can agree on compromise proposals.  Out of an
>> abundance of caution, though, I'd like to nail the issue down.
>> 
>>      Accordingly, I'm asking people to reaffirm their positions in a
formal
>> vote.  The voting period will extend to midnight UTC following December
>> 17.
>>  The proposal, as set out in
>> <http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc00/msg01499.html>, is that *the
>> addition of new global top-level domains should begin with a first
>> round of
>> 6-10 new gTLDs followed by an evaluation period*.  Please vote YES or
>> NO in
>> a message sent to the wg-c list (not just to me).  I'll tally votes,
>> but
>> I'd like the messages to be public so that anybody on the list can
>> check my
>> math.  The margin for determining rough consensus within the WG, as in
>> the
>> WG-B votes, will be 2/3.  I'll freeze list membership pending the vote.
>> 
>>      2. In response to Harold's question: no, ccTLDs are outside our
>>      charter.
>> 
>>      3. After we get done with the 6-10 consensus call, I'd like to see
>>      whether
>> we can move forward on the mixed vs. non-profit only debate.  I'd like
>> to
>> do that in two ways.  First, I expect to call a non-binding straw poll
>> just
>> so that we can get a general idea of where the folks on the list stand
>> (and
>> whether the views of those participating in the debate reflect the
>> views of
>> the much larger group of lurkers).  Second, I'd like to see the folks
>> participating in this debate generate specific, detailed proposals,
>> with
>> explanations of how their proposals would address the problems noted by
>> opponents.  It's OK to wait on this until after we get the 6-10 issue
>> taken
>> care of, though.
>> 
>> Jon
>> 
>> 
>> Jonathan Weinberg
>> co-chair, WG-C
>> weinberg@msen.com
>> 

--
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934