RE: [wg-c] Straw Vote

[john.c.lewis@bt.com]

I agree with Marilyn - I've just returned from a week's absence travelling
on business followed by two weeks leave to find 1238 e-mails awaiting me,
mostly from WG-C and WG-A discuss groups. 

I can't even locate the questions we are proposing to vote on from this
audit trail;there are >50 on Straw Vote alone with the earliest not citing
the questions to be voted on. There's got to be a better way.

Regards

John C Lewis
Manager - International Organisations Europe
BT delegate ETNO Executive Board
BT delegate EURODATA Foundation Board
Tel: +44 (0) 1442 295258 Mob: +44 (0) 802 218271
Fax: +44 (0) 1442 295861

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [SMTP:mcade@att.com]
> Sent:	13 August 1999 14:43
> To:	'rmeyer@mhsc.com'; Jonathan Weinberg; wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject:	RE: [wg-c] Straw Vote
> 
> 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
> --------------------