[council] FWD: from Jonathan Weinberg, WG-C status and request

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

FWD: from Jonathan Weinberg, WG-C status and request

At 04:55 PM 2/14/00 -0600, Caroline Chicoine wrote:
>Given Jonathan's posting (thanks Jonathan!), I do not think it is necessary
>for me to post a summary of the status, except to provide a link to the
>current charter under which WGC is operating
>(http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990625.NCwgc.html).  Knowing that there
>will be a public forum on WGC in Cairo, I would like to discuss people's
>view on whether the charter should be modified and if so, how (at a minimum
>should we update/add deadlines to ensure things move forward since this has
>been one of the biggest complaints of WGC participants?)
> [snip]

	FWIW, I think two changes in the WG-C charter would be helpful.

	1. Deadlines: The deadlines in the original charter were fanciful, and are
now long past.  It could be a good thing for the NC to write some
meaningful deadlines now.  On the one hand, we have several important
questions left that will require a fair amount of work, and I think we're
making progress that shouldn't be cut off unnecessarily; any deadlines need
to be reasonable.  On the other hand, we ought to be able to finish up our
work by the end of the spring.  Under no circumstances should this WG still
be in existence past its one-year anniversary date.  Deadlines could be
useful in making sure that we hit our targets.

	2. Deliverables: The original charter contemplated that the WG would
deliver three documents: (1) a general policy report, expressing and
justifying positions on the nature of any new TLDs, the mechanism of the
rollout, whether they should be chartered, how they should be managed,
etc.; (2) a draft "call for tenders" for new gTLD registries; and (3) a
document detailing gTLD registry and data maintenance procedures.  In
retrospect, that was much too ambitious.  I will be very proud of the WG if
we're just able to do a good job on item (1) — the general policy
statement.  I would limit the deliverables to that one item, and leave the
rest to be developed in some other forum.

	I don't think there's a lot of point to revising the charter in other
respects.  The specific questions posed by the charter, though not
precisely the ones I would write, are adequate for the purpose.  I think
that redrafting them wouldn't be a productive use of time.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, wg-c
weinberg@msen.com