Re: [wg-c] "process"

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

At 06:35 PM 3/5/00 -0800, Justin McCarthy wrote:
>Thank you Bob Broxton. In the weeks that I've been closely
>following the wg-c debate, it's become apparent to me that
>this forum is really the furthest thing from a genuine
>debate. It's clear to me that the powers that be want what
>they want and anybody that has a dissenting view is harshly
>criticized and labeled anti progress. The usual suspects
>keep referring to their seat of ethos as being derived from
>a majority vote early on--they now have a mandate to do what
>they see fit, even though the group of participants is now
>much larger than it was early on. The time constraints now
>seem to be dictating not only the degree of democracy in
>arriving at the "groups" findings, but also the substance of
>those findings. The cards were stacked before this project
>began.

I think Mr. McCarthy is responding to a message that I sent him two weeks ago, when he first joined WG-C.  For background, I've pasted the text of that message below.  I think its gist -- that for a working group to make progress, it can't reopen settled issues every time a new person decides to join the group, even if the new person disagrees -- is crucial for any WG.

Jon


>>>>
> Justin --
>
> This is an interesting debate, but one which we've argued to death on WG-C.  The consensus of the working group was that we *should* have new gTLDs, and that your view that the "(perceived) shortage of internet names" is mythical is simply wrong.  At some point, in order to have progress within a working group, we need to treat issues as settled and move on; this is one of them.  To argue otherwise, you should have been here last summer.
>
> Jon
>
>
> Jonathan Weinberg
> co-chair, WG-C
> weinberg@msen.com
<<<<