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

[Javier <javier@aui.es>]

Jon,



>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.)

Count me in as supporter.

>   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.")

I would like to encourgage those who have not expressed an opinion on this 
issue to do so.

I don't think that we need a formal vote, but the answers to this poll can 
give a fair idea of what the WG thinks.

I would also like to encourage those who have positions that are not far 
appart from this one to yield a little bit and support it, if they can, 
expressing their differences of opinion or specifying position, such as: 
"yes, but with a slow roll-out" or whatever your reservation is. It is 
clear by now that there will be no agreement on deploying 1 TLD or 100, 
this is the only middle ground in which we can reach some sort of 
agreement. In order to get anywhere we need to soften our positions and 
really try to reach consensus.

Javier