RE: [council] FW: WGC Straw Vote

[Dennis Jennings <Dennis.Jennings@ucd.ie>]

Caroline,

I have given up on WG-C because of the avalanche of e-mail and the lack of 
content.

I presume that the straw poll was based on a document that outlined all the 
options for adding or not adding new gTLDs, and the advantages and 
disadvantages of each approach.  I would very much like to see this 
document and read it.  Can you (or anyone else) give me a pointer to it 
please (sorry - I just cannot plough through all the WG-C dross looking for 
the pointer to this document.)

Thanks
Dennis

On Friday, September 03, 1999 3:02 PM, Chicoine, Caroline 
[SMTP:chicoinc@PeperMartin.com] wrote:
> > 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-----
> > > Fran: Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>
> > > Till: wg-c@dnso.org <wg-c@dnso.org>
> > > Datum: den 3 september 1999 09:10
> > > Amne: [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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >