[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[wg-c] On reaching consensus, and the purpose of the testbed

	1. I was thinking today about the search for compromise within the WG, and
I came back to this message that Petter posted about three months ago:

>Dear Javier and All others,
>In a try to summarize the discussion so far, I would say that I see
possibilities to reach a rough consensus on a few more items:
>1) There should be new gTLDs, provided that
>2) there are linked to a speedy and effective dispute resolution process
(details to be suggested by others), and
>3) an easy and cost-effective system for obtaining full contact information
>4) there should be a limited number of new gTLDs to start with (some
"how", "how many" and "which" questions remains to be answered), 
>5) followed by an evaluation period ("how long", "what shall be
evaluated", "by whom" and "for what purpose" remains).
>INHO, this is the result of the work of this WG so far, but it is at least
a starting point. I do not believe that we will be able to make consensus
on all the remaining questions ("the details") but I do believe that we can
all agree with the general idea listed above. 

	It seems to me (I said so then, too) that we ought to be able to make
progress on reaching rough consensus within this framework, and that we can
(and should) do so within the context of the 6-10 consensus.  I'm hopeful
that that's ground on which we can move forward.

	2. A list member asked me, off-list, for a response to Kent's question:
whether we had ever defined the purpose of the testbed.  I think the answer
goes back to our debate in August over a question raised in the straw poll:
whether (a) ICANN should announce a plan to add a large number of TLDs,
putting the burden on opponents to slow or halt deployment if problems
emerge (as position paper B argues), or (b) it should roll out a smaller
number of TLDs, pause for evaluation, and add more only after assessing the
results of the first round.  The rough consensus of the WG on 6-10 ended up
incorporating the second option.  Our general understanding was that ICANN
should be able to evaluate the operational and technical effects of adding
the first set -- in particular, whether adding the first set created
important problems of some sort -- before making the decision whether to
add more.  The actual "testbed" terminology was first used by Jean-Michel


Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, wg-c