Re: [wg-c] Straw Vote

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

Roger --

Taking your points in reverse order:

	By all means, to the extent that neither option one nor option two
reflects your views, post a note explaining what your views are and how
they differ.  I'll try to take all of that into account when I post a
summary of the votes.

	As I see it, the function of this WG is to make recommendations to
the NC.  We can't bind the NC; in the end, they will recommend to the
ICANN Board the course of action they think best.  At the same time, I
think our recommendations will be entitled to weight in their
deliberations, because we are the body they set up to do the work of
formulating recommendations; because we'll have done a lot of work
formulating recommendations that work; and because we are representative,
in the sense that all affected interests can participate.  (As an aside,
isn't it the case that *all* working groups are composed of the people, or
some subset of the people, who choose to join?)  My goal here is that we
produce, in a timely manner, a report that reflects such consensus as we
can muster, and reflects alternate views in areas where we can't muster
consensus.  Once we do that, as the old saying goes, "man proposes, and
the NC disposes."

Jon


Jon Weinberg
weinberg@msen.com


On Sat, 14 Aug 1999 rogerc@us.ibm.com wrote:

> Jon-
> I'm happy to participate in your straw vote, with two qualifications:
>
> 1) I share some of the concerns expressed by others about the immediate role of
> this Work Group.  Particularly during the period when our Group operates under a
> commission from an interim Names Council, the status of a Work Group made up of
> those who decided to join it can, and will, be debated.  While there is no
> question that this Group serves an important function when it acts as a forum
> for discussion, at this particular moment and under these circumstances,  any
> effort by us to act  as a legislative body will certainly be more widely
> debated.   (I think that situation changes when a permanent Names Council is
> installed and when that Council takes whatever action it wants with regard to
> its commission for this Work Group.)  So I wouldn't want my participation in
> your straw vote to be interpreted as my expressing a view, one way or another,
> on the authority of this Work Group to take actions in advance of the
> installation of a permanent Names Council;
>
> 2) Like several others, I feel constrained by there being only two options
> available under Question One, since neither of them actually reflects my views.
> (I realize that is often the purpose of a decision tree: to force participants
> to select from options so that the options themselves can be progressively
> refined)
>
> Having said as much, between Options 1 and 2 to Question One, Option 1 comes
> closer than 2 to reflecting my views.  So I guess you would say, I select Option
> 1.
>
> Roger
>
> Internet Address: RogerC@US.IBM.COM
> Program Director-Policy & Business Planning, IBM Internet Division
>
>
>
> QUESTION ONE: HOW MANY NEW gTLDS, AND HOW FAST?
>
> Option 1: Without regard to whether it would be desirable to have many
> gTLDs in the long term, ICANN should proceed now by adding only a few, and
> then pausing for evaluation.  Only after assessing the results should it
> initiate any action to add more.
>
> Option 2: ICANN should implement a plan contemplating the authorization of
> many new gTLDs over the next few years.  (Example: ICANN might plan to
> authorize up to 10-12 new registries, each operating 1-3 new gTLDs, each
> year, for a period of five years; each year's authorizations would be
> staggered over the course of the year.)  This option would place the burden
> on opponents, if evidence comes in demonstrating that additional new gTLDs
> are a bad idea or that the rollout is too fast, to bring that evidence to
> ICANN's attention and call for a halt or a slowdown.
>
>
>
>
>


Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg@msen.com