RE: [wg-c] Straw Vote

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

I respectfully suggest then that you only ask the questions you want
answers to. The rest is noise.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Weinberg
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 1999 7:58 AM
> To: wg-c@dnso.org; mcade@att.com
> Subject: 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
> >--------------------
> >
> >
>