[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: CONSENSUS CALL
I want to clear up what seems to me to be a misperception in Mike Helzer's
note, quoted below. He (and perhaps others) appears to view the 6-10 proposal
as necessarily inconsistent with "[t]he three criteria in the Chicoine
Paper [position paper C]". Those criteria are:
>i) improved domain name registration procedures; ii) implementation of
>speedy and effective uniform dispute resolution procedures for abusive
registrations; and iii) adoption of a system for protecting
>famous and well-known trademark across all gTLDs.
We've seen a lot of movement on these; the second was addressed by the
UDRP, and the third is being addressed by WG-B. I don't think that
anything in the 6-10 proposal speaks to those criteria one way or another.
(And no, I don't think a majority vote equals consensus. I picked 67%
this time because it was the margin that had been selected by WG-B. As of
right now the votes in WG-C are running more than 80% in favor.)
Jon
Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, WG-C
At 08:07 PM 12/10/99 +0100, owner-wg-c@dnso.org wrote:
>>From wg-c-listadmin@dnso.dnso.org Fri Dec 10 20:07:20 1999
>Received: from hotmail.com (f163.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.163])
> by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) with SMTP id UAA11884
> for <wg-c@dnso.org>; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 20:07:19 +0100 (MET)
>Received: (qmail 767 invoked by uid 0); 10 Dec 1999 19:07:37 -0000
>Message-ID: <19991210190737.766.qmail@hotmail.com>
>Received: from 199.108.50.11 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP;
> Fri, 10 Dec 1999 11:07:37 PST
>X-Originating-IP: [199.108.50.11]
>From: "matt hooker" <matthooker@hotmail.com>
>To: wg-c@dnso.org
>Subject: RE: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: CONSENSUS CALL
>Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 11:07:37 PST
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
>12/10/99
>
>Here here! I agree. 2/3 does not a consensus make. Also, Before deciding to
>freeze the membership and voting list, at least 30 days notice should be
>given, and the decision to freeze should be determined by consensus also.
>
>Regards,
>
>Matt Hooker
>Webmaster@Net-Speed.com
>matthooker@hotmail.com
>
>----Original Message Follows----
>From: mheltzer <mheltzer@inta.org>
>To: "'Chicoine, Caroline'" <chicoinc@PeperMartin.com>
>CC: IPCGeneral@iipa.com, 2217279@mcimail.com, avlupo@arentfox.com,
>cchicoine@bspmlaw.com, cle@fwpa.com, gbprice@finnegan.com,
>ip@rodyk.com.sg, jse@adamspat.com, keith.gymer@btinternet.com,
>law@sbm.com.ar, milnep@gowlings.com, nicopr01@noa.nintendo.com,
>petter.rindforth@enderborg.se
>Subject: RE: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: CONSENSUS CALL
>Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 09:11:27 -0500
>
>At least we've gotten this thing off the dime and created further
>discussion. Folks out there should know that INTA and the IPC as a whole
>will * not * go quietly into the night on this issue. The three criteria in
>the Chicoine Paper * must * be met before any new gTLDs are added. If you
>are on WG-C, vote * NO *.
>
>Also, someone should remind Mr. (Professor) Weinberg that a majority vote
>does not equal consensus.
>
>Mike
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chicoine, Caroline [mailto:chicoinc@PeperMartin.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 8:52 PM
>To: IPCGeneral@iipa.com
>Subject: FW: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: CONSENSUS CALL
>
>
>FYI. Please email me any feedback.
>
>Thanks, Caroline
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:weinberg@mail.msen.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 3:36 PM
>To: wg-c@dnso.org
>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
>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
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>