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

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

	Right now, the only point on which it seems to me we have consensus is
that my Question One options one and two were poorly drafted and
susceptible of multiple interpretations.  I did, in writing up those
options, try to convey the distinction Javier identifies in his post —
between [1] a plan under which the establishment of gTLDs after the first
few can take place only if authorized in a new round of decisionmaking, so
that "[a]n action of ICANN Board or the DNSO is necessary to continue
deployment"; and [2] a plan under which ICANN at the start announces a
presumption in favor of deploying a lot of gTLDs, and "[a]n action of ICANN
Board or the DNSO is necessary to stop the deployment plan."

	My concern about Javier's formulation, though, is that I don't think we
*do* have "rough consensus on having an evaluation period after the
deployment of a first few gTLDs."  Option 2, as I drafted it, didn't
include an evaluation period at all.  It contemplated an orderly, phased
rollout over several years, and didn't specify an official pause for
evaluation after the first few gTLDs or otherwise.  Rather, it contemplated
that persons who believed that the data coming in showed the planned
rollout to be too fast or too extensive could bring their concerns to ICANN
at any time.  The point is important, I think, because a plan calling for
deployment of a "few" gTLDs followed by an "evaluation period" gives a
specific decisional pressure point to the folks who believe that ICANN
ought to deploy only a few new gTLDs and then stop.

	I do think that some of the posts over the past few days have suggested
possible workable compromises.  One sort of possible compromise might
involve a trade-off between the procedural mechanism and the number of
gTLDs in the initial group:  Could we find a solution in which option two
folks agree to the "first round of new gTLDs, pause, and see if we should
add more" mechanism in return for option one folks agreeing to increase the
number of gTLDs and registries added in the first round?  Or could we find
a compromise that couples the "first round of new gTLDs, pause, and see if
we should add more" mechanism with an explicit statement by ICANN at the
outset that it intends to add more unless the first round demonstrates
serious problems?  I don't know if either of these (or any other approach)
can form the basis of agreement, but I think there's room to work together
here.

	One final note: There's been a little sparring between Kent and William
regarding "minority reports."  Minority reports, though, are what the
dissenters get to write *if* the rest of us find rough consensus to agree
on: the minority report is a dissent to the report of the working group.
If we don't find rough consensus, what we submit are alternative reports.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, WG-C
weinberg@msen.com


At 02:31 PM 8/21/99 +0200, 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 
>
>
>