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

[Eric Brunner <brunner@world.std.com>]

Marty, (and most everyone else)

Thanks for the prognostication credit, I can use all the credit I can get,
and I got several wrong -- Elisabeth, Marilyn/Mark, and possibly more.

You would love to see some specific TLDs proposed here with a description of
their attributes ASAP. I tried that. Swimming up a river of #@$% is about
the gist of it.

You propose consensus on picking two specific TLDs to propose to the NC by
Jan 31 with answers to several reasonable questions. Unfortunately this is
likely to have the effect of swapping the B votes for the C votes, or just
swapping a dozen "YES" votes to "NO" (B co-signers) for a dozen "NO" votes
to "YES" (C co-signers).

I saw a least-risk absolute majority some weeks ago, with my deeply flawed
glasses on. Now I see four camps, A+D, B, C, and the 40 odd lurkers. No two
of B or C can partner with A+D, so there isn't much point in A+D staying in
a three-way standoff, four-way if you count the list-drek.

You may want to ask Mike Roberts for a copy of his reply to my reply to
Dave earlier this vote-period.

Cheers,
Eric