Re: [wg-c] This workgroup list and disruptions, and a motion

["Keith Gymer" <keith.gymer@btinternet.com>]

Jonathan wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>
To: Kevin J. Connolly <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>; <wg-c@dnso.org>;
<william@dso.net>
Sent: 24 August 1999 15:29
Subject: Re: [wg-c] This workgroup list and disruptions, and a motion
<SNIP>

> 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:
<SNIP>

I will be blunt.  Given the composition of this wg, it is an ABSURDITY to
assert that voting as proposed will provide any indication whatever of any
significant "consensus".  As Tony Rutkowski has correctly noted, and
consistent with my own previous comments, there are essentially two blocs
represented in this wg - they substantially comprise representatives of the
IP and Business constituencies in one bloc and representatives of the gTLD
registry/registrar lobby in the other.  In no way can the votes of a few
representatives of these groups be taken as an indicator of the presence or
absence of "consensus" across the broader range of all stakeholders who
stand to be affected by decisions on the addition of new gTLDs and who are
represented by all the constituencies in the DNSO.  The NC is the
appropriate body for voting and is where the presence or absence of
consensus may be established.

As Tony has also indicated, it is pretty clear that views are polarised with
the broad-based business community and IP constituencies looking for a
cautious and structured approach and the would-be registry lobby wanting to
throw this particular "Pandora's Box" wide open.

In these circumstances, it does indeed seem that the only reasonable course
of action is for this wg to note that these two blocs do have substantially
different views and to present a summary of both positions to the NC and
ICANN - it will be for them to decide on which option (or an alternative)
they perceive is in the best interest of ALL stakeholder groups and the
stability of the internet overall.

Keith