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

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Most of the people in this group seem to be interested in
working toward some agreeable or acceptable position.
I think you're the odd man out here, Kent.

Kent Crispin wrote:

> Of course there is indeed a significant difference -- Javier's
> proposition is that we simply admit there is no consensus, and
> report the level of support for the different options.  Option 1
> didn't say that at all.
>
> There is wide support for a limited rollout, followed by an evaluation.

Half of the group expressed support foroption 1, and half didn't. It is
clear to the more cooperative members
of the WG that we can do much better than a 50-50 split if we
make some minor adjustments in how we approach and specify
the initial rollout.

> > Look at what Kevin has proposed.
>
> A obvious non-starter -- it specifies particular registry operators,
> which obviously cannot be done -- any tender for registry operator
> not done through an open application and selection process is simply
> not going to fly.

It does not specify particular registry operators.Those were used as an
example or illustration.
Specific gTLD *names* were used (per, nom), and there was
a statement that there would be three new registries
as opposed to just one. That's important, and that
position commands far more support than your
transparent attempt to create a registry monopoly.