Re: [wg-c] WG Report: deadlines and draft language

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

Jon,

I think the report understates the difficulties to forward progress.

I think the report would be improved if it convayed a sense of the
following to its readers:

	1. there are participants in WG-C who reject the principles in
	   the IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root,
	2. there are participants in WG-C who reject the principles in
	   the DoC White and Green Papers, that a need for new gTLDs
	   exists,
	3. there are participants in WG-C who reject the principle of
	   ICANN having the capacity to act except subordinate to some
	   hypotheticized registry operator and TLD selection agency,
	4. there are participants in WG-C who reject the principle that
	   early access to the DNS is a privilige, and that equity of
	   access is a legitimate function of government, or that any
	   "digital divide" actually exists.
	5. there are participants in WG-C who reject the principle of
	   participation in the work of WG-C (lurkers and cryptic voters),
	   and who reject the principle of distinct DNSO working groups, 
and
	6. there are participants in WG-C who reject the principle that
	   NSI has exhaustively defined the business and operational
	   models for both registies and registrars. 

You can leave it as blocked by mystery or the unnamed prediliction of
lists (other than most IETF WG lists) to failure, but it seems weak to
not attempt to state causes. The NC may continue to dither, or it may
mean something this time when it placed a date firm, or it may decide
to put us our of our miseries "en masse" or it may look at the set of
principles rejected and apply some winnowing criteria of their own to
assist WG-C in meeting its charter in a timely fashion.

If the NC decides that Indians are infra dig in the DNS I personally will
be vastly relieved. Ditto for group 6, above, the CORE, IAHC, IETF set of
survivors of this process, myself included.

I wish they'd get off the dime and fill the vacant NC Liason role.
A 2nd co-chair to sanity check (help you) and not leave weeks of time
sans co-chair or "chair" (NC Liason) could be added as process issues
the NC could act on could be in the report.

If I think of anything more I'll make a 3rd mailing.

Cheers,
Eric

Cheers,
Eric