RE: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: CONSENSUS CALL

["Penman, Ian" <ian.penman@dla-law.co.uk>]

Yes


Ian Penman
DLA
London
Ian.Penman@dla-law.co.uk


> ----------
> From: 	Jonathan Weinberg[SMTP:weinberg@mail.msen.com]
> Sent: 	08 December 1999 21:35
> To: 	wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: 	[wg-c] IMPORTANT: CONSENSUS CALL
> 
> 	I've not been doing much to move the list forward lately; I've been
> snowed
> under by day- job demands and by illness in my family.  It does seem to
> me,
> though, that it's time to do something.  Here, therefore, is my attempt to
> get us off the dime.
> 
> 	1. I've seen several folks, both in the "official" comments on the
> interim
> report and otherwise, dispute whether we genuinely had rough consensus
> within the WG on the 6-10 proposal.  The comments of Mike Heltzer of INTA
> are typical: "There has been no consensus - rough or otherwise - with
> respect to new gTLDs.  There was no vote taken in WG-C.  Mr. Weinberg has
> drawn up the idea that there is consensus.  It is based on his own
> notions,
> nothing else."
> 
> 	This continuing dispute is a bad thing.  As several people,
> including both
> Kent and Milton, stated in the physical meeting in LA, in order to make
> progress we need to *build* on our achievements so far - including the
> 6-10
> compromise proposal.  I've got no doubt that we achieved rough consensus
> within the WG on that proposal back in September, for the reasons I set
> out
> in <http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc00/msg01794.html>.  I think that
> was a big step towards the WG coming together and actually generating
> recommendations -- there likely won't be *any* new gTLDs added to the
> legacy root unless we can agree on compromise proposals.  Out of an
> abundance of caution, though, I'd like to nail the issue down.
> 
> 	Accordingly, I'm asking people to reaffirm their positions in a
> formal
> vote.  The voting period will extend to midnight UTC following December
> 17.
>  The proposal, as set out in
> <http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-c/Arc00/msg01499.html>, is that *the
> addition of new global top-level domains should begin with a first round
> of
> 6-10 new gTLDs followed by an evaluation period*.  Please vote YES or NO
> in
> a message sent to the wg-c list (not just to me).  I'll tally votes, but
> I'd like the messages to be public so that anybody on the list can check
> my
> math.  The margin for determining rough consensus within the WG, as in the
> WG-B votes, will be 2/3.  I'll freeze list membership pending the vote.
> 
> 	2. In response to Harold's question: no, ccTLDs are outside our
> charter.
> 
> 	3. After we get done with the 6-10 consensus call, I'd like to see
> whether
> we can move forward on the mixed vs. non-profit only debate.  I'd like to
> do that in two ways.  First, I expect to call a non-binding straw poll
> just
> so that we can get a general idea of where the folks on the list stand
> (and
> whether the views of those participating in the debate reflect the views
> of
> the much larger group of lurkers).  Second, I'd like to see the folks
> participating in this debate generate specific, detailed proposals, with
> explanations of how their proposals would address the problems noted by
> opponents.  It's OK to wait on this until after we get the 6-10 issue
> taken
> care of, though.
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
> Jonathan Weinberg
> co-chair, WG-C
> weinberg@msen.com
>

application/ms-tnef