RE: [wg-c] about the consensus call; How do we get a degree of objectivity to come to bear on the subject?

["Roeland M. J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Amen!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Robert F. Connelly
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 10:18 PM
> To: WG-C
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] about the consensus call; How do we get a 
> degree of
> objectivity to come to bear on the subject?
> 
> 
> At 01:05 15-03-2000 -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> >         Reactions?  Am I right in these late-night 
> assessments, or is the
> >consensus call proposal a better one than I'm giving it 
> credit for just
> >now?  If I am right, is there a good (and quick) way to 
> address (some of)
> >those concerns?
> 
> Dear Jonathan:
> 
> A wag once quipped, "Objectivity varies as the square of ones 
> distance from 
> the problem".
> 
> Not that I agreed with the questioner, it was posed in the 
> context that 
> those least knowledgeable (farthest from the problem) really don't 
> understand the issue.
> 
> I think all of us know the issue ad nauseam:-{  In this case, 
> bringing in 
> the selection of gTLDs brings a degree of divisiveness which 
> would keep us 
> arguing in Pershing Square forever -- at least this bunch of 
> us dies off.
> 
> I therefore do not endorse the idea of having this group compound its 
> problem by adding a hundred new variables to the selection 
> process *at this 
> time*.  In fact, this group may *never* be able to come to a 
> consensus on 
> the actual gTLDs to be delegated.
> 
> Regards, BobC
>