RE: Reaching Decisions and "Re: [wg-c] Well, maybe this won't work"

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Robert,
I saw it, but I didn't understand it. I don't know the reference to an
"Option 3". Could you please clarify?

Yes, in principle, I agree to a VoteBot and have been saying so for a
longish while. Joop Teernstra has even volunteered the IDNO VoteBot to
this issue, in the DNSO/GA. As a member of the IDNO steering committee
and with the caveate  that the rest of the IDNO steering committee have
final approval, I repeat Joop's offer of the use of the IDNO VoteBot.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Robert F. Connelly
> Sent: Monday, September 06, 1999 2:49 PM
> To: wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: Reaching Decisions and "Re: [wg-c] Well, maybe this
> won't work"
>
>
> At 17:22 06-09-1999 -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>
> >         I had hoped that enough people in the center could
> rally round a
> > centrist,
> >compromise  position, that it wouldn't matter that there
> were holdouts on
> >either side. In the face of this opposition, though, eight
> people humming
> >in favor just won't do it.  Unless we get a strong surge of
> support for the
> >proposal now, I'll conclude that it's not going anywhere.
> I'm fresh out of
> >ideas for forging consensus — anybody else have any?
>
> Dear Jonathan:
>
> For some reason, no one responded to my posting under the
> subject "Reaching
> Decisions".
>
> I quoted a bit of important history.  What that history
> taught us was that
> three people could drown out the voices of 22.
>
> Here is that prior posting with a change in the actual ballot:
>
> Dear WG-C:
>
> I am greatly concerned that this WG is bogged down, has gone
> astray or,
> better, been led astray.
>
> I'd like to give you a bit of CORE history.  Early on, there
> was a lot of
> traffic and acrimony over the issue of whether our
> contributions to CORE
> should be thought of "dues" to CORE or should be advances
> against that
> happy day when they would applied to purchasing registrations units
> (RCUs).  If you listened to the posting, you would have
> thought that 75% of
> the members were in favor of charging *all* contributions off as dues.
>
> I was among those who could see that it would favor a small
> number of very
> large CORE members against the smaller, geographically
> diverse members.  I
> pressed for a vote, finally got agreement to the content of
> the ballot.
>
> There were to be three options:
>
> 1. No credit against registrations (all attributed to dues).
> 2. 50% registrations, 50% dues.
> 3. 100% to be allocated to advances against future registrations.
>
> When it was all over, only 3 members voted for option 1, only
> 12% were
> making all the noise.
>
> The following is a summary of the Votebot on this issue:
>
> Started: 01/06/1998 Ended: 01/10/1998
>
>       Point I
>            a) No credit against registrations. 3
>            b) 50% credit against registrations. 7
>            c) All contributions are to be advances against
> registrations 15
>
> I now therefore make the following proposal for a Votebot on
> the issues
> proposed by Jonathan in his "Straw ballot".  I don't think
> I've heard any
> strong support for Option 3, but it could be included in the Votebot.
>
> [] Option Zero, no new gTLDs {added to this present posting}
> [] Option 1
> [] Option 2
> [] Option 3
> [] Option 1, monitor results, increase gTLDs if results of initial
>       gTLD delegations do not cause adverse effects.
> [] Abstain
>
> I further propose that if we don't bring this issue to a
> vote, we discharge
> WG-C with a round of thanks to our Co-Chairs for giving us
> the best that
> they could considering the divergent views, hidden agendas
> and axes being
> ground.
>
> I close with a bit of wisdom from a former boss, Ulric B.
> Bray.  We have
> too many "expert opinions", we need a test.
>
> In all sincerity,
> Bob Connelly
>
>
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "One test is worth three expert opinions!"
> Ulric B. Bray
>