Re: [wg-c] STRAW POLL

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sat, Feb 12, 2000 at 09:48:59AM -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> 
> 	This is quite silly.  Here's WG-C's first task as defined in its charter,
> which is on <http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990625.NCwgc.html>:
> 
> Should there be new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs)? If yes: How many?
> Which? At which speed should they be deployed and in which order? What
> should be the mechanism for developing new gTLDs after all these are
> deployed.  *Should each new gTLD have a specific charter?*

You're right -- in my haste looking over the charter I just didn't see 
that line, so my argument in that area is garbage.

> >This straw poll is simply silly.  There in fact has been little
> >meaningful discussion of charters or sponsors -- we don't even have a
> >clear consensus on definitions of the terms (note how the lack of
> >consensus on the definition of "gTLD" causes problems even today). 
> >
> >So this poll is essentially equivalent to asking whether or not we
> >should support gaborbalizif.  Such straw polls are not a useful way to
> >proceed in a WG.
> 
> It's a shame -- and a loss -- that you're not participating.

I firmly believe that my participation, if it has any value at all,
comes through discussion, not through whatever vote I might cast in a 
straw poll.

>  You did vote
> when I asked a similar question in a straw poll some months ago.  Back
> then,

Back then the negative aspects of this approach wasn't quite so glaringly 
obvious...

[...]
> 	Kent -- you wrote recently, in a note to ga, that there were things you
> wish I had done differently.  FWIW, I agree with you.  And I think it's
> likely that we regret a lot of the same things.  But we're here, and I
> think we'd do well to push forward in the forum we've got.

Carry on.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain