Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: CONSENSUS CALL

[Joseph Friedman <josephf@touro.edu>]

I vote Yes unconditionally.

--Joseph

On Wed, 8 Dec 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:

> 
> 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
> 
>