Re: [wg-c] Trying to close on Question 1

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

This is a step backwards from where we have already gone.
It is not significantly different from the original version of
Q1, Option 1, which does NOT command anything close
to a consensus.

Look at what Kevin has proposed.


Javier SOLA wrote:

> 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



--
m i l t o n   m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
syracuse university          http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/