[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-c] This workgroup list and disruptions, and a motion
We've seen a lot of traffic, over the last couple of days, on the
"contractual requirements" question. As I understand it (and I apologize
if I'm misrepresenting anyone's position), the basis of the debate is
something like this: Some folks, who favor a mixed system of for-profit
and nonprofit registries, urge that contractual requirements for registries
will obviate any problems that might result from that approach. Other
folks, who urge that all registries be nonprofit, argue that contractual
requirements will be ineffective (or at least, that a system incorporating
for-profit registries subject to contractual requirements will be inferior
to a system allowing only nonprofit registries). I don't know whether a
consensus exists yet favoring either view. It just so happens, though,
that we have a mechanism for finding that out: We're in the middle of a
voting period on straw poll Questions Two through Four -- which include a
question on whether we should have a mixed system of for-profit and
nonprofit registries, or only nonprofit registries. So VOTE on those
questions, and express your views (the voting period has been extended to
Sept 1, because of the Santiago proceedings). If it turns out, on the
basis of those results, that we have consensus or near-consensus on a mixed
system of for-profit and nonprofit registries, then it'll be appropriate
for the chairs to appoint a subgroup to draft contractual requirements. If
we *don't* have consensus (or in advance of any consensus), it's still
appropriate for any set of WG members to work offline drafting such a
document, and to present it to the WG when they're done. But I set up the
straw votes precisely so that we could make some progress on these issues.
(If it turns out that we don't have consensus on *anything*, then it may
be time to set up drafting groups to produce alternative reports, to be
submitted to the NC with the notation that we couldn't reach consensus on
anything. But let's first see what the straw poll reveals on the remaining
questions.)
Jon
Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, WG-C
weinberg@msen.com
At 09:01 AM 8/24/99 -0400, Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
>Ya' know, when two people with notably different perceptions of the
>policy dimensions involved here (e.g., William and I) see eye to eye
>about the need to filter out the noise and get some work done, it
>seems to me to be pretty clear that the time has come for the leadership
>to do something: either lead or get out of the way.
>
>I second William's motion.
>
>KJC
>
>>>> "William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net> 08/24/99 05:11AM >>>
>I am making an official motion that a splinter group be formed for the
>purposes of drawing up a set of reasonable contractual requirements
>that a registry would be required to sign on to in order to operate a
>TLD.
>
>I move that this group conduct its work on a list other than this one,
>and that those who absolutely oppose the concept that this should be a
>considered solution not be permitted to participate in this list.
>
>The reasons?
>
>We have seen the a plenty on this list in the last 48 hours.
>
>An extremely high amount of traffic that has accomplished absolutely
>nothing.
>
>I am going to blame this on 3 people. 3 people who have an interest
>in making sure that NO censensus comes out of this work group unless
>it is 100% of what the CORE group proposes. I allege that they are
>counting on the fact that they control such a significant portion of
>the Names Council that they believe they are assured success if they
>can prevent this work group from forming a substantive near consensus
>approach that is not in line with their own view.
>
>I won't name names, they know who they are. They are working quite
>dilligently, misrepresenting arguments, and beating the same dead
>horses, to prevent substantive work from being done. We are getting
>caught up in this mess rather than accomplishing anything.
>
>It is rather interesting that they tried the same thing on another
>forums whose work they opposed. Anyone who has any doubts can see the
>EXACT same tactics being used here as where used there.
>
>I'm sick of it.
>
>Either the chairs will form a splinter/sub group, or I will create a
>mailing list @dnspolicy.com to form a splinter group and this work
>WILL get done.
>
>Some order is needed here, or we need new leadership.
>
>--
>William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
>Email: william@dso.net Fax:(209) 671-7934
>Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/
>
>(IDNO MEMBER)
>Support the Cyberspace Association, the
>constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners
>http://www.idno.org
>
>
>
>**********************************************************************
>The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
>and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
>product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
>and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of
>this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
>that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
>munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi-
>cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
>at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
>**********************************************************************
>
>