[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: CONSENSUS CALL
I vote YES.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Weinberg <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 4:35 PM
Subject: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: CONSENSUS CALL
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 6-10 new gTLDs followed by an evaluation period*. Please vote YES or NO
> 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
> 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
> so that we can get a general idea of where the folks on the list stand
> whether the views of those participating in the debate reflect the views
> 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
> care of, though.
> Jonathan Weinberg
> co-chair, WG-C