Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: CONSENSUS CALL

[Jeff Shrewsbury Info Avenue <iamarketing@InfoAve.Net>]

YES

At 04:35 PM 12/8/99 -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>	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
>