[wg-c] Trying to close on Question 1

[Javier SOLA <javier@aui.es>]

Jonathan,

Here is an attempt to compromise:

>	What I think the straw vote showed is that neither option one nor
>option two, standing alone, has consensus support *within the working
>group*.  Therefore we're not going to be able to report either position to
>the NC as the consensus view of the WG.  In default of that, we have two
>options: (1) to submit a report to the NC explaining that no proposal on
>the "how many, how fast" issue had consensus support within the WG, and
>detailing the opposing views; or (2) to find a new (compromise?) position
>on the issue that *can* command rough consensus within the WG.

>  Notwithstanding all of these comparisons, I think we still
>should try to find the formulation that best expresses the consensus of
>the group

Options 1 and 2 have something in common: there is a first stage in which a
few domains are deployed and then an evaluation. 

How many people would oppose expressing this result in the report of WG C
in the following way:

"There is rough consensus on having an evaluation period after the
deployment of a first few gTLDs. There is no consensus on wether, after
this period: 1) An action of ICANN Board or the DNSO is necessary to
continue deployment or; 2) An action of ICANN Board or the DNSO is
necessary to stop the deployment plan. XX% of the members of the WG support
option 1) while YY% support option 2). We do not claim consensus on this
second issue."

Note that I have written "ICANN Board or the DNSO". All I mean here is that
we have not discussed yet who should be the one to evaluate. My own
personal believe is that it should be the DNSO, but this  requires some
discussion in this WG.

Note also that I do not talk of an "evaluation period", but of an "action",
which could take place in parallel with the last stage of the first
deployment plan.

Javier