[council] FW: WGC Straw Vote

["Chicoine, Caroline" <chicoinc@PeperMartin.com>]

> Please find below Jonathan's summary of the straw vote poll.
>
I am very concerned about Jonathan's latest post.  I believe it is
unacceptable that his message fails to explain why 19 members of the WG
C abstained from voting. I am also concerned with his Compromise
Proposal for Question 1 which failed to indicate an opinion that was
expressed by several members of the WGC that the addition of new gTLDs,
whether many or a few, should not be added until a) a speedy and
effective dispute resolution process (preferably mandatory b) a system
for protecting famous and well-known trademarks across all gTLDs, and c)
an easy and cost-effective system for obtaining full contact
information. Whether or not this is a majority or minority view, it
should be noted and appears nowhere in his proposal. As I have said
before, I believe that any conclusions made by Jonathan or anyone else
for that matter based on such a vote in light of the NC resolution in
Santiago are inaccurrate because they can IN NO WAY REFLECT CONSENSUS
due to the circumstances under which the straw poll was held.  I also
believe his blatant disregard for the resolution that was passed puts
into question his ability to act as a chair of a working group.

Raul, I am not suggesting that WGC go out of business or that it cannot
continue its dialogue.  What I object to is the production of proposals
(like Jonathan's recent Compromise Proposal") or voting before WGD has
produced interim measures.
>
IMHO, I believe that the NC co-chair, Javier, needs to bring Jonathan in
line. 

Anyone out there?????
>
>
> > -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> > Från: Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>
> > Till: wg-c@dnso.org <wg-c@dnso.org>
> > Datum: den 3 september 1999 09:10
> > Ämne: [wg-c] straw poll results
> >
> >
> > > Fewer people voted in the second phase of the straw poll than in
the
> > >first.  While 44 people voted in the first phase, only 25 voted in
> the
> second.
> > >
> > > In question two, just under half of the voters -- twelve people --
> voted
> > >for options one or two.  Both of those options contemplate that
ICANN
> will
> > >decide on the new gTLD strings, using an ad hoc approach to choose
> the
> > >gTLDs that it thinks will best serve the Internet community, and
then
> > >solicit applications from would-be or existing registries to run
> those
> > >TLDs.  Six people voted for option one (each proponent of a new
gTLD
> > >applies to the NC for formation of a WG devoted to that gTLD), and
> six
> for
> > >option two (a standing WG makes periodic proposals for new gTLDs).
> Two
> > >people voted for option three (all gTLDs are limited-purpose and
> selected
> > >by ICANN to fit into a predetermined structure for the namespace,
> such as
> a
> > >Yellow Pages-like taxonomy).  Five people voted for option four
> (ICANN
> > >starts by adding the existing "alternate" gTLDs), and eight people
> voted
> > >for option five (ICANN picks registries, which in turn choose their
> own
> TLD
> > >strings).  (Those numbers reflect some double-counting because two
> people
> > >voted for both option four *and* option five.)  These figures
suggest
> that
> > >the voters were all over the lot on the issues covered by question
> two,
> and
> > >no obvious consensus appears.
> > >
> > > In question three, eleven people voted for option one (all
> registries
> > >should be nonprofit).  Four people voted for option three (in
> addition to
> > >the nonprofit registries, there can also be for-profit ones,
running
> a
> > >small number of gTLDs).  Nine voted for option four (in addition to
> the
> > >nonprofit registries, there can also be for-profit ones, without
> > >limitations on the number of gTLDs), although two of those people
> added
> > >caveats suggesting that their views were in fact closer to option
> three.
> > >One person's comments made it impossible to tell whether to
> pigeonhole
> him
> > >into option two, three or four.  In any event, fourteen people
voted
> in
> > >favor of having for- profit registries.  Once again, the straw poll
> does
> > >not suggest a consensus.  It's notable, though, that a majority of
> those
> > >voting favored a mixed system of for-profit and nonprofit
registries.
> > >
> > > In question four, twelve people voted for option one (all gTLDs
must
> be
> > >shared).  Eight voted for option two (an ICANN rule presumptively
> requires
> > >that gTLDs be shared, but ICANN would allow exceptions in
particular
> > >cases).  Five voted for option three (no sharing requirements).
> These
> > >results seem to me striking.  On the one hand, 80% of those
> participating
> > >voted for options one or two -- that is, that ICANN should impose
> *some*
> > >sharing requirement.  On the other hand, a majority of those voting
> > >indicated that there should be room for non-shared TLDs as well.
> This
> > >suggests to me that the WG may well be able to find rough consensus
> around
> > >option two as a compromise position (or, at the very least, that
*if*
> the
> > >WG is able to find rough consensus, it will be around option two).
> > >
> > > My own evaluation of the results: The vote suggests that question
> two
> (how
> > >to select gTLD strings and registries) is the hardest one we have
to
> > >resolve.  We're all over the lot on that one.  On question three
> (mixed
> > >system or nonprofit only), we're split as well.  While the votes
> suggest
> a
> > >slight majority favoring the mixed system, it's impossible to tell
> whether
> > >that majority would hold up if the entire WG were polled.  On
> question
> four
> > >(sharing), by contrast, the numbers suggest a route to a resolution
-
> it
> > >seems likely that option two can provide a workable compromise,
> consensus,
> > >position.
> > >
> > >Jon
> > >
> > >
> > >Jonathan Weinberg
> > >co-chair, WG-C
> > >weinberg@msen.com
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>