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

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

	Keith's post raises two issues.  The first is whether we can reach
consensus on any issues *within this working group*.  As to that: maybe
yes, maybe no.  I've had some contacts with Javier off-list about putting
together a possible compromise on "how many, how fast" that could be
acceptable to the middle ground of the group.  Whether that'll work, I
don't know, but I'd like to try.

	The second issue is whether it's worth trying to achieve consensus within
the working group, given that the WG wasn't set up to mirror "the broader
range of all stakeholders who stand to be affected by decisions on the
addition of new gTLDs."  I think it is worth it.  The fact is that not only
within this WG, but also within the Internet community at large, there are
wide and sharp disputes on the issues we're addressing.  If the WG
participants, who *do* represent a lot of the contending forces, can reach
*any* compromises on these issues, that will do a great service to the
Internet community at large.  It will, I think, substantially speed the day
when a plan for adding new gTLDs can actually be adopted and implemented
(something I, at least, think would be a Good Thing).  So it's something we
should try to do.

	(As a parenthetical, I think Keith is overly simplistic in his
characterization of the "blocs," and I'm bemused by his feeling that the
broad range of Internet stakeholders *is* represented in the NC
constituencies, but both of those are side points.)

Jon


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


At 10:00 AM 8/25/99 +0100, Keith Gymer wrote:
>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
>
>
>