Re: [wg-c-1] Wecome to Drafting Committee 1

["Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>]

> If the vast weight of argument
> is on the side of the view that ICANN *should* decide the names and
> charters of the new gTLDs, then it will be a simple matter for this group
> to reach that conclusion as a matter of substance.

The problem being, of course, that this group is very limited in number
and, let's be honest, definable in view and scope. I suspect we could
take a vote RIGHT NOW on most of these issues, and I could, by noting
who is in the group, tell you what the outcome would be with very
good accuracy. This isn't a slur on the participants (indeed, I am in the
same boat, and I'm sure you could guess how I would vote) in any
way - just an observation that, owing to who is here, the outcome
has been substantially predetermined. I don't expect anyone here
will have their mind changed by empassioned (or not) argument.

> You've argued that our consideration of this debate is inconsistent with
> the WG1 charter, which you drafted, and which the incomplete Names Council
> approved.  I take it that you're referring to the second word of the
second
> line of question 1: "Which?"  That word, though, doesn't disable us from
> considering this issue -- assuming that WG1 decides that ICANN should be
> deciding the names and charters of the new gTLDs, then it will indeed have
> to answer the "which" question.  I don't think the Names Council believed
> that, in approving the WG1 charter, they were declaring the issue of
> ICANN's role off-limits to debate.

It's worse than that :-)

Christopher