[wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C

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

	This is a long message, but all of it is important.  It includes
three major items: the production schedule for the WG-C interim report, a
limitation on posts to the WG-C list, and rough consensus on the "6-10"
proposal.

	1. Working Group D has submitted its report on how best to move
our process forward, and the Names Council has approved the
recommendations in that report.  You can find the report at
<http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990914.WGDreport-to-NC.html>.  It
concludes:

WG-C, as currently constituted, with its current leadership, is in a
position to find compromise, consensus solutions to at least part of the
problem if left to find its own way. The recommendations by WG-D are
intended to move this process forward, and ensure ability for all
interested parties to participate.

	2. Javier and I have discussed how best to implement the
recommendations in the WG-D report, and have agreed on the following
items.  First, Working Group C will issue an *interim report* on October
15, 1999.  That interim report will include position statements, written
by proponents of the various positions advocated within the WG, explaining
and advancing their positions. The drafting of the statements, we believe,
will both help focus the group's thinking and allow us to receive comments
from the larger Internet community.

	In order to make the October 15 deadline, we will have to adhere
to a very tight schedule.  It will look like this:

October 1 -- WG members must submit initial drafts of position papers.  
We encourage drafters to include these items: an abstract of the proposal,
summarizing the drafters' position and recommendations; a clear statement
of the proposal and its rationale; an analysis of who and what systems
would be affected; a specific implementation plan; a discussion of the
costs and risks of the proposal; and a discussion of the proposal's
support in the various stakeholder communities.  Drafters, however, are
free to develop statements in the form they think best.

October 1 to October 8 -- During this period, we encourage the proponents
of each position paper (1) to revise their arguments and positions in
light of the arguments and positions in the other position papers; and (2)
to seek additional signers from the rest of the WG.  We anticipate that
position paper drafters may end up modifying their statements, to some
degree, so as to get additional signers on board.

October 8  -- Revised drafts due.

October 15 -- the co-chairs submit the interim report, including an
introduction drafted by the co-chairs.

	Once the interim report is complete, it will be submitted for
public comment. The overall process, in the words of the WG-D report,
"will serve to clarify each group's respective position, highlight areas
of agreement and disagreement, uncover areas of technical or economic
impracticality, and discern the public support for the various positions."
Those advances will lay the foundation for our final report.

	This is an extremely tight timeframe; initial drafts of position
papers are due *two weeks from today*.  So let's get going.

	2. Effective tomorrow, everyone is limited to posting no more than
two messages to the list per day.  We are undertaking this step for two
reasons.  First, it should cut down on the high list volume that has
discouraged many people from participating in the work of the list.
Second, we hope that list members, as the WG-D report put it, will "take
care to make their two posts per day count - leaving unimportant or
tangential things unsaid, and concentrating on making substantive comments
on the main issues before the group."

	We trust that everyone will comply with this limitation without
needing to be asked.  Nobody will moderate posts before they go to the
list.  That means that it's the responsibility of each list member to make
sure that he or she doesn't violate the two-post-per-day rule by accident
or in an excess of enthusiasm.  If people should violate the rule, they
will be sanctioned by a warning followed by short-term suspension from the
list.  The ultimate sanction for violation is expulsion, although I can't
imagine that that will be necessary.

	3. Javier and I have determined that, on the basis of the messages
submitted to the list, the "6-10" proposal is supported by rough
consensus.  Of the views expressed to the list, more than 70% of those
expressing a view were in favor.  That is, nineteen people expressed
support, and seven expressed opposition.  The folks expressing support
noted the following caveats: Four people urged that the evaluation period
should be short.  One emphasized that the rollout should continue after
the evaluation period so long as the initial addition goes well.  Two
conditioned their support on the 6-10 new TLDs being run by 6-10 new
registries, and one stated that at least four registries must be included.

	Five of the people expressing opposition urged that we should
defer discussing the number of gTLDs until we resolve issues such as
whether the new TLDs are to be special-purpose or general-purpose.  Three
urged that the initial rollout should be limited to 2-3 new gTLDs, and
must be linked to the establishment of an effective and speedy ADR
process, including protection of famous marks, and an easy and
cost-effective system for obtaining contact information.  One stated that
only one new gTLD should be introduced at the outset.

	Our determination of rough consensus, of course, *does not* mean
that anybody is obligated to support the "6-10" proposal in their position
papers.  Javier and I do feel, however, that the discussion on the list
sends a clear message of support for the compromise proposal.  We consider
that an important development.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, WG-C
weinberg@msen.com