Re: [wg-c] An amazing lack of activity.

["Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>]

At 10:33 08-09-1999 -0600, Jim Glanz wrote:
>Dear Members of WG-3:
>
>I, too, have been watching from the sidelines.  You will see I spoke up once
>and decided that there were too many chiefs in our WG to have a positive
>flow of info and direction.  All the issues I had have been addressed and
>addressed again and again and again.  The patient has been inspected and
>dissected far too much and may not survive the life-saving operation.  It is
>time to make a decision.  Draw the line in the sand on those issues that are
>contested and decide that the majority on either side is what the WG works
>from.

Dear Jim:

Thank you for your excellent analysis of the present situation.  I have 
proposed a Votebot on the issue, with four options.  Those options were 
refined by Dan Busarow:

[How do we proceed]
         [] Option 0
         [] Option 1
         [] Option 2
         [] Option 1/2

Where Option 0 is no new gTLDs, Options 1 and 2 are well known and Option 
1/2 is for gradual opening as in Option with the potential for further 
opening on the *successful* launching of the initial few gTLDs.

If no option gains a majority, we eliminate the least popular one or two 
options and Votebot again.  I suspect we can have a majority, perhaps even 
a super majority by the second Votebot.

>  Do not allow retroactive discussion of those things that created or
>caused the division between WG members once this decision is made.  It is
>that simple.  We worry far too much about where the journey takes us without
>ever deciding to leave.  We miss so much along the way.

It is my opinion that some participants are committed to keeping us from 
*ever* leaving on our journey.  Sad.

Regards, BobC

>Jim Glanz


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robert's Rule of Problems.

(The sum of Hypothetical situations/The sum of Real problems)>=10

(c) Robert F. Connelly, 1999
Quotation, with attribution, authorised without written request;-)