RE: [council] From Jonathan Weinberg, recommendations on WG-C

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

Ken, can you add to the next agenda to vote on Jon's request for disbandment
of WGC. In fact, if there is no opposition, maybe we could take care of this
via email.  I personally am in favor of Jon's request.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr]
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2000 2:36 AM
To: council@dnso.org
Subject: [council] From Jonathan Weinberg, recommendations on WG-C



> From owner-wg-c@dnso.org Sat Apr 22 05:08 MET 2000
> Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.20000421230415.030a9ef8@msen.com>
> Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 23:04:15 -0400
> To: Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr
> From: Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>
> Subject: [wg-c] for the NC
> Cc: wg-c@dnso.org, touton@icann.org
> 
> Elisabeth --
> 
> 	Yet again (and probably for the last time), I'd be grateful if you
could
> forward this message to the Names Council.
> 
> 	Thanks.
> 
> Jon
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> To the Names Council:
> 
> 	This message is to convey my recommendation that Working Group C be
> thanked and disbanded.  For three reasons, I don't think it makes sense
for
> us to continue work.
> 
> 	First, we've run out of time.  Now that you've sent your
recommendation on
> new gTLDs to the Board, it's the job of ICANN staff to draw up
> implementation documents, for public comment, so that the Board can take
> action in Yokohama.  I understand that Louis Touton has advised that you
> should complete your recommendations within a month if ICANN staff are to
> be able to take them fully into account.  There isn't sufficient time, in
> one month, for Working Group C to reach further consensus recommendations
> and for you to approve those recommendations after a three-week period of
> public comment.
> 
> 	Second, if we were to do additional work, I'm not sure on what basis
we'd
> proceed.  The approach of the working group has been to build on past
> consensus points in crafting new ones. For some time, those past consensus
> points have included a rough consensus in favor of an initial deployment
of
> six to ten new gTLDs followed by an evaluation period.  Your recent
> deliberations, however, suggest that you may not consider that a reliable
> foundation on which to build further work.
> 
> 	Finally, we're all tired.  (I know I am.)  I think the vast majority
of
> the members of the working group have shown tremendous, admirable
> willingness to engage, and to compromise, on the important substantive
> issues.  We've all learned from each other to a remarkable degree.  At
this
> point, though, I don't think we're going to get a lot more done.  It's
time
> for different bodies to move these issues forward.
> 
> 	I'm deeply grateful to have had the opportunity to participate in
this
> important endeavor.
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
> Jonathan Weinberg
> co-chair, WG-C
> weinberg@msen.com
>