RE: [wg-c] Votebot sample ballot.

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

> Dear Colleagues:  This is what a Votebot from Dan Busarow
> would look like.

Okay, I have no problem with the VoteBot.

> The Issue is as stated below:

This is the problem. You continue to couple the "if any" question to the
"how many" question. You will never get a clear answer this way. This is
because we can ONLY answer the "how many" issue, with consensus,  when
we all understand [and have agreed to] the "How to add TLDs" process
question. Without that answer the debate recurses back to the "if any
question".

I have suggested a process that I think will work. More importantly, it
is a sequence of steps that will get us there.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Strategy:
Handle one step at a time, in order:
Evidence of each step's completion is;
	1) a consensus position, based on a vote.
	2) Recommendation for modification of the next step (if any).

Steps:
	1) Do we add any new Registry/gTLDs?
	2) Where do we register the TLD registry (root registry)?
	3) Minimum services expected from a TLD Registry.
	4) Minimum services expected from a gTLD.
	5) Minimum  business requirements for a Registry.
	6) How many registries?
	7) How many gTLDs per registry?

I firmly believe that if we follow this sequence exactly we will arrive
at some consensus on items 6 and 7 without as much pain as we are
experiencing now. In order for this to occur, we must set up a VoteBot
now. Whether we use Joop's polling place, or Busrow's VotBot doesn't
matter to me, as long as we use one. Also, there are NO SHORTCUTS. That
is the very reason we are in this jam to begin with. Let us all
excersize some self-discipline and stick to the process, whatever
process we agree to.

Note: I expect items 3, 4, and 5 to be non-trivial.
-------------------------------------------------------------

To rephrase your question set for this first round.

> QUESTION: DO WE ADD NEW gTLDS?
>
> Option 0:       No new gTLDs should be delegated.
>
> Option 1:       Add unlimited TLDs
>
> Option 2:       Add new TLDs according to a process to be defined in
the next phase.
>
> Option 3:       None of the above.
>
> Option 4:       Abstain.


The point here is that no one is forced to make a "how many" commitment
that they are not yet ready to make. However, it let's us enter the next
step with a firm commitment that new TLDs will be added, if this passes.
If it doesn't pass then all of us know where we stand and ICANN BoD has
their answer.

Of course, that won't stop the RSC's from moving forward, even if it
does stop ICANN/NC.

Personally, I think that the fact that we are all here, and the NC
exists, all add up to the fact that we want to add TLDs. Otherwise, why
have a NC, to tell NSI how to run their business? Yeah, right ...

--------------------
Roeland M.J. Meyer, CEO
Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
http://www.mhsc.com/
mailto://rmeyer@mhsc.com
--------------------
	KISS, gotta love it!