RE: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

I am writing the position paper for MHSC. I would hope to complete
first-draft by the end of the week-end. The others will each write their
own position papers. There will then follow a discussion/merging period.
from which will flow one, or more, position papers representing WG-C
views.

This is my best understanding of the process. If I am misunderstanding
something, please advise.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Jean-Michel Becar
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 1999 1:19 PM
> To: wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C
>
>
> Sorry for not having replying before, but you know sometimes
> travels get
> difficult to write emails.
>
> So I fully support all Jon said in that message...
>
> I just want to know who will write the position paper for the 1rst
> October????
>
>
> Jean Michel Bécar
> E.T.S.I. Project Manager
> Tel:	+33 (0)4 92 94 43 15
> Fax:	+33 (0)4 92 38 52 15
> GSM:	+33 (0)6 82 80 19 31
> www.etsi.org
> becar@etsi.fr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:weinberg@mail.msen.com]
> > Sent: 17 September 1999 16:58
> > To: wg-c@dnso.org; javier@aui.es
> > Cc: baf@fausett.com; Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com
> > Subject: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C
> >
> >
> > 	This is a long message, but all of it is important.  It includes
> > three major items: the production schedule for the WG-C
> > interim report, a
> > limitation on posts to the WG-C list, and rough consensus on
> > the "6-10"
> > proposal.
> >
> > 	1. Working Group D has submitted its report on how best to move
> > our process forward, and the Names Council has approved the
> > recommendations in that report.  You can find the report at
> > <http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990914.WGDreport-to-NC.html>.  It
> > concludes:
> >
> > WG-C, as currently constituted, with its current leadership, is in a
> > position to find compromise, consensus solutions to at least
> > part of the
> > problem if left to find its own way. The recommendations by WG-D are
> > intended to move this process forward, and ensure ability for all
> > interested parties to participate.
> >
> > 	2. Javier and I have discussed how best to implement the
> > recommendations in the WG-D report, and have agreed on the following
> > items.  First, Working Group C will issue an *interim report*
> > on October
> > 15, 1999.  That interim report will include position
> > statements, written
> > by proponents of the various positions advocated within the
> > WG, explaining
> > and advancing their positions. The drafting of the
> > statements, we believe,
> > will both help focus the group's thinking and allow us to
> > receive comments
> > from the larger Internet community.
> >
> > 	In order to make the October 15 deadline, we will have to adhere
> > to a very tight schedule.  It will look like this:
> >
> > October 1 -- WG members must submit initial drafts of
> > position papers.
> > We encourage drafters to include these items: an abstract of
> > the proposal,
> > summarizing the drafters' position and recommendations; a
> > clear statement
> > of the proposal and its rationale; an analysis of who and
> what systems
> > would be affected; a specific implementation plan; a
> discussion of the
> > costs and risks of the proposal; and a discussion of the proposal's
> > support in the various stakeholder communities.  Drafters,
> > however, are
> > free to develop statements in the form they think best.
> >
> > October 1 to October 8 -- During this period, we encourage
> > the proponents
> > of each position paper (1) to revise their arguments and
> positions in
> > light of the arguments and positions in the other position
> > papers; and (2)
> > to seek additional signers from the rest of the WG.  We
> > anticipate that
> > position paper drafters may end up modifying their
> statements, to some
> > degree, so as to get additional signers on board.
> >
> > October 8  -- Revised drafts due.
> >
> > October 15 -- the co-chairs submit the interim report, including an
> > introduction drafted by the co-chairs.
> >
> > 	Once the interim report is complete, it will be submitted for
> > public comment. The overall process, in the words of the
> WG-D report,
> > "will serve to clarify each group's respective position,
> > highlight areas
> > of agreement and disagreement, uncover areas of technical
> or economic
> > impracticality, and discern the public support for the
> > various positions."
> > Those advances will lay the foundation for our final report.
> >
> > 	This is an extremely tight timeframe; initial drafts of position
> > papers are due *two weeks from today*.  So let's get going.
> >
> > 	2. Effective tomorrow, everyone is limited to posting
> > no more than
> > two messages to the list per day.  We are undertaking this
> > step for two
> > reasons.  First, it should cut down on the high list volume that has
> > discouraged many people from participating in the work of the list.
> > Second, we hope that list members, as the WG-D report put it,
> > will "take
> > care to make their two posts per day count - leaving unimportant or
> > tangential things unsaid, and concentrating on making
> > substantive comments
> > on the main issues before the group."
> >
> > 	We trust that everyone will comply with this limitation without
> > needing to be asked.  Nobody will moderate posts before
> they go to the
> > list.  That means that it's the responsibility of each list
> > member to make
> > sure that he or she doesn't violate the two-post-per-day rule
> > by accident
> > or in an excess of enthusiasm.  If people should violate the
> > rule, they
> > will be sanctioned by a warning followed by short-term
> > suspension from the
> > list.  The ultimate sanction for violation is expulsion,
> > although I can't
> > imagine that that will be necessary.
> >
> > 	3. Javier and I have determined that, on the basis of
> > the messages
> > submitted to the list, the "6-10" proposal is supported by rough
> > consensus.  Of the views expressed to the list, more than
> 70% of those
> > expressing a view were in favor.  That is, nineteen people expressed
> > support, and seven expressed opposition.  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 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
> > 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.
> >
> > 	Our determination of rough consensus, of course, *does not* mean
> > that anybody is obligated to support the "6-10" proposal in
> > their position
> > papers.  Javier and I do feel, however, that the discussion
> > on the list
> > sends a clear message of support for the compromise proposal.
> >  We consider
> > that an important development.
> >
> > Jon
> >
> >
> > Jonathan Weinberg
> > co-chair, WG-C
> > weinberg@msen.com
> >
>