SV: [wg-c] On reaching consensus, and the purpose of the testbed

["Petter Rindforth" <petter.rindforth@enderborg.se>]

Dear Jon,
Thank you for re-posting my old message. Although I have voted "no" in the current consensus call, I have not changed my mind on what issues we should be able to reach consensus on. 

The main reason why I voted no to 6-10 new gTLDs, and I dare say that this is the main reason for most of the other no-voters, is that I am deeply concerned that we make such decison now without having decided on the "environmental" questions. 

In a perfect world, everyone can get as many domain names as needed for their commercial and private use, without any conflicts with other interests, trademarks, company names and trade names. In a perfect world, there are no infringers, cybersquatters, etc.

Unfortunately, this perfect world does not exist and will most likely never exist. This makes the work within the WG C extremely hard and sensitive. There is a considerable lack of guidelines from ICANN and the NC and I would like to point out that I belive that you have done a great job so far under these circumstances.

Within the Position Paper C, we have pointed out three specific safeguards that, in our opinion, must be in place _before_ we can answer the question "how many".  Furthermore, we believe that it is important to add new gTLDs only in a slow and controlled manner. Here is where I have problems with as much as 10 new gTLDs at the same time.

We must start discussing how to prevent the problems we have seen with the current gTLDs before we can add new ones.

So, once again, the no votes shall not be taken as a no to any new gTLDs under any circumstances.

Best regards,
Petter 

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>
Till: wg-c@dnso.org <wg-c@dnso.org>
Datum: den 16 december 1999 07:08
Ämne: [wg-c] On reaching consensus, and the purpose of the testbed


> 1. I was thinking today about the search for compromise within the WG, and
>I came back to this message that Petter posted about three months ago:
>
>>Dear Javier and All others,
>>In a try to summarize the discussion so far, I would say that I see
>possibilities to reach a rough consensus on a few more items:
>>
>>1) There should be new gTLDs, provided that
>>
>>2) there are linked to a speedy and effective dispute resolution process
>(details to be suggested by others), and
>>
>>3) an easy and cost-effective system for obtaining full contact information
>>
>>4) there should be a limited number of new gTLDs to start with (some
>"how", "how many" and "which" questions remains to be answered), 
>>
>>5) followed by an evaluation period ("how long", "what shall be
>evaluated", "by whom" and "for what purpose" remains).
>>
>>INHO, this is the result of the work of this WG so far, but it is at least
>a starting point. I do not believe that we will be able to make consensus
>on all the remaining questions ("the details") but I do believe that we can
>all agree with the general idea listed above. 
>
> It seems to me (I said so then, too) that we ought to be able to make
>progress on reaching rough consensus within this framework, and that we can
>(and should) do so within the context of the 6-10 consensus.  I'm hopeful
>that that's ground on which we can move forward.
>
> 2. A list member asked me, off-list, for a response to Kent's question:
>whether we had ever defined the purpose of the testbed.  I think the answer
>goes back to our debate in August over a question raised in the straw poll:
>whether (a) ICANN should announce a plan to add a large number of TLDs,
>putting the burden on opponents to slow or halt deployment if problems
>emerge (as position paper B argues), or (b) it should roll out a smaller
>number of TLDs, pause for evaluation, and add more only after assessing the
>results of the first round.  The rough consensus of the WG on 6-10 ended up
>incorporating the second option.  Our general understanding was that ICANN
>should be able to evaluate the operational and technical effects of adding
>the first set -- in particular, whether adding the first set created
>important problems of some sort -- before making the decision whether to
>add more.  The actual "testbed" terminology was first used by Jean-Michel
>Becar.
>
>Jon
>
>
>Jonathan Weinberg
>co-chair, wg-c
>weinberg@msen.com
>