[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-c] Straw Vote
A few notes:
1. A bunch of people are casting votes on all four questions, and that's
fine. I'm trying to make this process easy, though, and my intention was
to require people, at this point, only to cast votes on Question One. So
people should either cast votes just for the first question, or for more
than one, as they choose. I'll tally votes for Question One on Thursday,
and save votes on the other questions until the subsequent balloting periods.
2. My vote on Question One (which should come as no surprise to anybody)
is for option two.
3. I took a look last night at the 68[*] members of WG-C (any list member
can get it by sending the message "who wg-c" to majordomo@dnso.org), and
I'm really impressed at how diverse and broad that group is. Frankly, I
don't think we could put together a much more diverse and broad group than
this. I think a call, at this point, that we are not "diverse and broad"
enough to start looking to see if we have consensus, is simply a call to
trash the work of the past month, give up any search for consensus in this
WG, and start over again in a forum more sympathetic to the poster's views.
I have too much respect and admiration for Marilyn to believe that that's
what she had in mind, and so I figure that her post was simply over-hasty.
I can't emphasize enough that I think *everybody* in the WG who cares about
these issues should participate -- or we might as well pack it in right now.
Jon
Jon Weinberg
co-chair, WG-C
weinberg@msen.com
---------------------------------------
[*] The list shows 69 members, but one person is subscribed twice.
At 09:43 AM 8/13/99 -0400, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>I don't believe that we are actually ready to start "balloting" even as
>"straw polls"; we first need to assess whether we have diverse and broad
>participation engaged in the dialogue about this sensitive and critical set
>of issues. Let's take a quick assessment, pre-Santiego, on how
>representative this effort is.
>
>Regards, Marilyn
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roeland M.J. Meyer [mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com]
>Sent: Friday, August 13, 1999 8:10 AM
>To: Jonathan Weinberg; wg-c@dnso.org
>Subject: RE: [wg-c] Straw Vote
>
>
>> Jonathan Weinberg
>> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 1:53 PM
>> To: wg-c@dnso.org
>>
>
>> Javier hasn't
>> seen this final version, though, and if you don't like it, you should
>> complain to me, not him.)
>>
>> I'd like us to start taking straw votes on these
>> questions. I don't mean
>
>> So as a beginning, list members should cast votes on
>> Question One. You
>
>> explain what his or her preferred policy choice is. Voting
>> should close at
>> midnight EDT on August 18. (I don't think we really need
>> that long, and I
>> expect it'll make sense to take less time for the remaining
>> questions, but
>> I figure it's better to err on the side of inclusiveness the
>> first time out.)
>
>> Jon Weinberg
>> co-chair, WG-C
>> weinberg@msen.com
>
>Yes, it NEEDS to take that long. Some of use have day-jobs and these
>issues are not trivial.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------------------------------
>
>> QUESTION ONE: HOW MANY NEW gTLDS, AND HOW FAST?
>
>Neither. ICANN should authorize TLD registries as they become available
>and meet operational criteria. They should become operational with no
>more than one TLD until they have proven operational and business
>viability/survivability, for one year. Only if they are still solvent,
>after that time, should they be allowed additional TLDs. Note: this may
>actually be more stringent than the proposed options.
>
>> QUESTION TWO: HOW TO SELECT TLD STRINGS AND REGISTRIES?
>
>Option x: ICANN should pick a set of registries, according to
>predetermined, objective criteria. The registries would then choose
>their own gTLD strings, subject to some process or rules under which
>ICANN could resolve conflicts. Alternatively, prove that the choice of
>TLD is adequately defensible, in a court of competent jurisdiction (ie.
>TM used as TLD).
>
>> QUESTION THREE: SHOULD REGISTRIES BE FOR-PROFIT OR
>> NON-PROFIT? HOW MANY
>> gTLDS SHOULD THEY RUN?
>
>Option x: Some registries would be run on a not-for-profit,
>cost-recovery basis. Other registries, however, could be run on a
>for-profit basis. Any registry could operate any number of gTLDs,
>subject to viability testing.
>
>> QUESTION FOUR: SHOULD ICANN REQUIRE SHARING?
>>
>> Option 3: ICANN would not require registries to
>> support competitive registrars in any of their gTLDs, although
>registries might
>> independently choose to do so.
>
>--------------------
>Roeland M.J. Meyer, CEO
>Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
>http://www.mhsc.com/
>mailto://rmeyer@mhsc.com
>--------------------
>
>