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

[werner@axone.ch (Werner Staub)]

Paul,

I also agree with the idea to launch 6-10 as a way to start. 
Btw, I feel this gTLD issue is quite unrelated to the issue 
of special purpose TLDs. These really should be discussed
separately, by specialised working groups.

Regards,

Werner



Paul Stahura wrote:
> 
> 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."

-- 
Tel: +41 22 312 5600  Direct line: +41 22 312 5640  http://axone.ch
Fax: +41 22 312 5601  2 cours de Rive   CH-1204 Geneva, Switzerland