Re: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises...

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

	I agree with much of what Petter says.

1) As Javier notes, we reached consensus long ago (in early to mid-July)
that there should be new gTLDs.

2) ICANN is currently finishing work on a "cybersquatting" dispute
resolution process.   Whether there should be a "famous marks" process is
outside our jurisdiction, but that's fine; it just means that the
desirability of such a process is one of the "details to be suggested by
others" that Petter refers to.

3) This WG has discussed contact information issues only glancingly.
Several folks have urged that such a system must exist, while Javier
reposted a message from Michael Froomkin making the case that contact
information availability should be limited in at least one TLD.  In any
event, though, this is something we can talk about.

4 & 5) As I stated a couple of weeks ago, I agree that any proposal that
can reach consensus in this WG will have to involve the rollout of a
limited number of new gTLDs followed by an evaluation period.

	I think we can do better, though.  So far, by my count, my compromise
proposal for "6-10 new gTLDs followed by an evaluation period" has gotten
expressions of support from 14 folks, and expressions of opposition from
seven.  (Petter is one of the seven.)  While we're not there yet, I think
that's awfully close to the sort of response that would justify a formal
vote to determine whether there is rough consensus within the WG on this
point.  (What counts, to my mind, in gauging whether there is a sufficient
possibility of rough consensus to justify a vote, is the ratio of expressed
support to expressed opposition.  As RFC 2418 puts it: "In general, the
dominant view of the working group shall prevail. . . . Note that 51% of
the working group does not qualify as ‘rough consensus' and 99% is better
than rough.")

	What do folks think?  (It would be especially good to hear from people who
haven't already made their positions clear; it can be frustrating, in this
WG, to figure out where the "silent majority" stands.)

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, wg-c
weinberg@msen.com



At 09:23 AM 9/13/99 +0200, Petter Rindforth wrote:
>Dear Javier and All others,
>In a try to summarize the discussion so far, I would say that I see
possibilities to reach a rough consensus on a few more items:
>
>1) There should be new gTLDs, provided that
>
>2) there are linked to a speedy and effective dispute resolution process
(details to be suggested by others), and
>
>3) an easy and cost-effective system for obtaining full contact information
>
>4) there should be a limited number of new gTLDs to start with (some
"how", "how many" and "which" questions remains to be answered), 
>
>5) followed by an evaluation period ("how long", "what shall be
evaluated", "by whom" and "for what purpuse" remains).
>
>INHO, this is the result of the work of this WG so far, but it is at least
a starting point. I do not believe that we will be able to make consensus
on all the remaining questions ("the details") but I do believe that we can
all agree with the general idea listed above. 
>
>Best regards,
>Petter
>
>-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
>Från: Javier <javier@aui.es>
>Till: wg-c@dnso.org <wg-c@dnso.org>
>Datum: den 12 september 1999 12:23
>
>>This group has reached full consensus on only one item: that there should 
>>be new gTLDs.
>>
>>Any further discussion of this issue only distracts the seach for consensus 
>>on other issues.
>>
>>Javier