[wg-c] Restatement of the compromise consensus

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

The consensus proposal should be clarified. The position was that
there would be an INITIAL rollout of 6-10 new gTLDs. After an
evaluation period, ICANN would continue to add gTLDs if no
serious problems arose. Go back to the votes for "Option 1" and
"Option 2." Jon's proposed compromise was meant to reconcile that
difference. Any position that gathers support from the people who
voted for either of those options commands about 80-90% of the
group as a whole.

The consensus compromise of 6-10 was simply a number that fell
between those who believed that ICANN should commit itself to a
large number of new gTLDs (in the hundreds) rolled out gradually,
and those who believed that there should be an "evaluation
period" after an initial rollout of modest size.

The people who believe in no new gTLDs or in a permanent
limitation at a very small number are negligible: no more than
10% of the WG as a whole. This has become evident a number of
times. We should stop allowing this small minority position to
claim that there is no consensus. There may not be a consensus on
many things, but there clearly is a consensus *against* their
particular viewpoint.

A significant number of the supporters of the proposed consensus
position also believe that there should be several new registries
authorized to run the new gTLDs. The number of registries is NOT
a separate question. There would be significantly less support
for the consensus position, indeed, a great deal of new
opposition, if only one new registry was authorized. Nowhere in
the record is there any expression of support for the idea of
only one new registry. I would ask anyone who disagrees to show
that such an idea was advanced and obtained support from anyone.