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

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

On 13-Sep-99 Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> 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.)

I will oppose any decision on number until the issues of how (such as the
minimum requirements and contractual obligations of the registries) are decided.

Until then, any decision on number is premature, and being made without enough
information to make an informed decision.

--
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934
Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/
 
Join DNSPolicy.com's discussion list!
http://www.dnspolicy.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/discuss
<IDNO MEMBER> http://www.idno.org