Re: [wg-c] WG-C report -- final version

["Mark C. Langston" <mark@bitshift.org>]

On Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 12:21:46PM -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> 
> 	We ran out of time with Sheppard/Kleiman, but FWIW, I think it's important
> for us to keep pushing -- I'd like the WG either to reach a solid consensus
> re: the principles (whether they're desirable, and if so what they should
> consist of), or to conclude that it can't, within the next four weeks, so
> that we can report that result to the Names Council *before* the NC members
> take their own vote on new gTLDs.


Sheppard/Kleiman rehash at a very late date most of the territory we'd
already covered at its introduction, and attempts to draw different
conclusions.

While it may have been floated with the best of intentions to foster
agreement between WG-B and WG-C, the result has been that many old
arguments are now being rehashed.

WG-B has its own charter, and was not intended to be the "WG-C for the
IP constituency".  However, that's what it's become.  I'll reiterate
that all public work in WG-B has ceased.  If there is still
substantive work occurring in WG-B, it is not occurring in the public
forum designated for such work.

Finally, I don't see how the NC _can_ consider a vote on these issues
in good conscience _without_ the report from this WG.  The only
appropriate action for the NC to take should the report be delayed
would be for the NC to delay the vote until the report is in, and then
vote as guided by the report.


But then, the NC is full of people with a vested monetary interest in
a decision one way or the other.  They're not the best group to be
making technical management decisions for the namespace, since their
financial interests and their will to act for the good of the Internet
may not exactly overlap.


-- 
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org
Systems & Network Admin
San Jose, CA