[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-c] We have no Emperor: Re: The Emperor's NewConsensus(w a s:Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C )
Marilyn and Kevin identify an important issue regarding the rough
consensus on the compromise proposal: WG-C has many more subscribers than
there were people expressing views. That fact makes it more difficult to
figure out where the sense of the working group lies. That problem,
though, isn't unique to this working group — it's typical in WG discussions
conducted over mailing lists. As Scott Bradner put it in RFC 2418, "where
the discussion has been held entirely over the mailing list[, t]he
determination of the level of consensus may be harder to do . . . since
most people subscribed to mailing lists do not actively participate in
discussions on the list." The challenge of such working group processes is
to balance the need for open and fair consideration of the issues against
the need to make forward progress; to that end, the WG chairs have the job
of figuring out when there appears to be strong enough consensus to move on.
Kent's surely right that the ultimate WG report should incorporate
statements from *everyone* whose views have significant support. We don't
have to worry about that in connection with the October 15 interim report,
since that report will consist almost entirely of the competing "position
statements" being set out for public comment. We need to keep it in mind,
though, when it comes time to prepare the WG final report — on issues as
contentious as these, even where the WG finds rough consensus, the report
should nonetheless allow for the inclusion of minority views.
As Milton points out, the text of the proposal was that "we begin with a
first round of 6-10 new gTLDs followed by an evaluation period." I
explained the evaluation period this way in a message on Sept. 3: "The
point of the evaluation period . . . would be to allow ICANN to decide
whether, how fast, and how extensively to proceed with rollout of
additional gTLDs. I like Jean-Michel's characterization of the initial
period as a "testbed" because that carries with it the understanding that
the point of the evaluation period is to look for problems in the initial
rollout, and that ICANN will continue to create new gTLDs unless the
initial rollout demonstrates problems that can't be fixed." Some people
conditioned their support for the compromise proposal on each new registry
being limited to a single gTLD, so that the 6-10 new gTLDs would be run by
6-10 new registries. (And I noted my own view that, in this sort of
limited initial rollout, it would be sensible to restrict each new registry
to a single gTLD.) One person stated that the initial rollout should in any
event include at least four new registries; another person has supported a
plan under which the initial rollout would include three new registries
each operating three TLDs. Nobody has indicated support on this list for
any plan under which any registry could operate more than 3 of the gTLDs
included in the initial rollout.
Jon
Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, WG-C
weinberg@msen.com
At 08:46 PM 9/22/99 -0400, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>
>Kevin, I agree with Caroline's comment. VERY eloquently put,but also very
>helpful in reminding us to think about different customs/different
>expectations. Marilyn
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chicoine, Caroline [mailto:chicoinc@PeperMartin.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 8:12 PM
>To: 'Kevin J. Connolly'; wg-c@dnso.org
>Subject: RE: [wg-c] We have no Emperor: Re: The Emperor's NewConsensus(w
>a s:Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C )
>
>
>Very eloquently put!
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kevin J. Connolly [mailto:CONNOLLK@rspab.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 11:17 AM
>To: wg-c@dnso.org
>Subject: RE: [wg-c] We have no Emperor: Re: The Emperor's NewConsensus(w
>as:Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C )
>
>
>Dear Readers:
>
>One of the things I learnt at an early stage during the domain name
>wars is the importance of maintaining a global perspective. Indeed,
>one of the primary criticisms of Jon Postel's Internet-Draft was that
>it was too US-centric, not sufficiently international. I point this out
>
>because perceptions regarding the polling process are not uniform
>when considered internationally.
>
>In the United States, there has grown up a perception that a voter
>is obligated to vote, and that, accordingly, a failure to exercise the
>franchise taints the non-voter as somehow obloquious. No such
>taint applies in Western Europe. In Western Europe, there is a long-
>standing tradition of staying away from the polls to express a
>withholding
>of support for _any_ outcome. The significance attached to voting/not
>voting explains why during the existence of the USSR, so much emphasis
>was laid on the fact that over 97% of eligible voters cast their ballots
>
>during legislative elections. I will also remind those North Americans
>who snicker at this example that by most objective standards, the USSR
>was more democratic during the last 20 years of its existence than the
>USA was or is: the rate of turnover in the membership of Soviets (both
>Supreme and local) was far in excess of the rate of turnover in the
>United
>States Congress and most State legislatures. Neither do most North
>Americans suppose that the United States could possibly undergo the
>kind of fundamental change which unzipped the USSR into the diversity
>which now exists. I am not saying that the unzipping was good or bad:
>I
>am saying that the unzipping reflects democracy of a calibre which
>is unimagined in the United States (except by some right-wing
>militiamen in the Pacific Northwest).
>
>Consequently, I reiterate my earlier hypothesis: the lack of responses
>during the time that our chairmen believe rough consensus was emerging
>may reflect nothing more or less than that many members of this WG were
>not paying attention, or otherwise consciously were refraining from
>stating an
>opinion. There are lots of reasons why they might not have been paying
>attention, including, most particularly, that a proposal was being
>touted to
>reduce/restrict the membership of WG-C. The fact that the membership
>has not been winnowed does not detract from the validity of members'
>decisions not to waste their time or that of others by continuing a
>debate
>in which their voices and/or votes would play no dispositive role.
>
>Please note that I am not saying that there is no rough consensus for
>the
>6-10 rollout. Neither am I saying that 6-10 is a bad idea. What I am
>saying is that the _way_ in which a finding of rough consensus was
>established and promulgated reminds me of the criticisms that were
>leveled at the IAHC. (Again, I am not saying that the criticisms of
>the IAHC were correct; in fact, my opinion of the IAHC and its work
>is quite to the contrary.) I should think that by now, participants in
>the domain name war would have learnt that the conflict is more
>about method than about substance. I should also have thought
>that the chairmen of this WG would have refrained from using their
>power to marginalize anyone who chooses to differ with the 6-10
>rollout as being out of touch with the rough consensus.
>
>Ultimately, though, I find it ironic that some have chosen to enshrine
>the
>process that took place as "democratic" while at the same time recoiling
>
>from the thought of actually taking a vote. Again, this is not about
>substance,
>it's about process. A lack of attention to process has resulted in a
>great deal
>of hard work in the domain name wars coming to grief already.
>
>Let's not perpetuate the mistake.
>
>Kevin J. Connolly
>Verbum sapientiae satis est; encyclopedia gikae non est satis; este
>sapientiae, non gikae.
>
><As usual, please disregard the silly trailer>
>
>**********************************************************************
>The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
>and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
>product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
>and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of
>this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
>that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
>munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi-
>cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
>at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
>**********************************************************************
>
>