RE: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: CONSENSUS CALL

["Cohen, Tod" <Tod_Cohen@mpaa.org>]

No.

Tod Cohen
Motion Picture Assocation

		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:weinberg@mail.msen.com]
		Sent:	Wednesday, December 08, 1999 4:36 PM
		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