Re: The Emperor's New Consensus (was:Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C )

["Paul Stahura" <stahura@enom.com>]

I am also in favor of the 6-10 proposal.
The number of registries is a separate question.
I do not think the TLDs should be special-purpose,
for the reason that if they were special-purpose,
they would not be able to compete as effectively
with the existing TLD registry, since the TLDs
"administered" by that registry are open and
not hobbled.

Paul Stahura
eNom, Inc.

----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: <wg-c@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 1999 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: The Emperor's New Consensus (was:Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE
RE: WG-C )


> At 03:52 PM 9/20/99 -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> >one measures consensus by counting heads or whatever.  i was under the
> >impression that the last count was quite non-consensual.  did i miss
> >something?
>
> Here's the history of the 6-10 compromise proposal:  I first floated this
> proposal on September 1, in
> <http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Archives/msg01499.html>.  Over the
> following two weeks, various people responded; some positively, others
> negatively.  More than 70% of those expressing a view, though, were in
> favor.  That is, by the end of Sept. 14, twenty-six people had sent
> messages to this list weighing in on one side or the other.  Nineteen
> people expressed support, and seven expressed opposition.  All of these
> messages were sent to the public list.  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 seven 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 of the seven
> 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.  There was some overlap between the
> folks in this group who urged a specific number of gTLDs and those who
> urged that the WG had no business addressing the number of gTLDs at this
> stage.
>
> I sent a message to the WG on Sept. 13 suggesting that we were near the
> point of calling a formal vote to determine whether the proposal was
> supported by rough consensus within the WG.  Javier responded, in a
message
> to the list, that he didn't believe a formal vote was necessary.  Rather,
> the responses to my proposal could themselves demonstrate the sense of the
> group.  He urged all those who had not expressed their views to do so (and
> he encouraged all "those who have positions that are not far apart from
> this one to yield a little bit and support it, if they can").  Several
more
> people then sent messages to the list noting their support.  A few days
> after that, Javier and I agreed that the headcount (particularly, the
> agreement of more than 70% of those expressing a view) indicated that we
> had rough consensus.[*]
>
> Jon
>
>
> Jonathan Weinberg
> co-chair, WG-C
> weinberg@msen.com
>
> [*]  In response to Tony's concern that it is not the job of the co-chairs
> to declare consensus, here is the relevant language from RFC 2418:  "In
> general, the dominant view of the working group shall prevail.  (However,
> it must be noted that 'dominance' is not to be determined on the basis of
> volume or persistence, but rather a more general sense of agreement.) . .
.
> Note that 51% of the working group does not qualify as 'rough consensus'
> and 99% is better than rough.  It is up to the chair to determine if rough
> consensus has been reached."