Re: [wg-c] Restatement of the compromise consensus

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>]

I normally try to edit down the message I'm responding to, to focus on the 
specific parts triggering the response.  In this case I'm including the 
whole message to underscore a point I consider quite significant:

One of the ways to determine the presence of a true rough consensus for a 
controversial topic is the see whether participants with a history of very 
different perspectives agree in this particular case.

Hence I want to comment that Milton's note matches my perception of the 
situation and presence of rough consensus EXACTLY.

d/

At 09:47 PM 9/22/99 , Milton Mueller wrote:
>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.
>
>


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                                         Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting                               Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive                             <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA                 <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>