Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT: CONSENSUS CALL

["Paul Stahura" <stahura@enom.com>]

Yes
Paul Stahura
eNom, Inc.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jonathan Weinberg" <weinberg@mail.msen.com>
To: <wg-c@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 1:35 PM
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