RE: [wg-c] Vote

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

I vote no. 

The report is presented as a consensus, and I have been among those who
haven't agreed with the view that there is consensus among a large enough
representation of the working group.  I am pleased to see that Jon accepted
some of the input put forward by the Business and commercial Constituency,
although I believe that not all of the input was reflected.  

I know that Jon has worked hard to present what he personally views as a
good compromise. His efforts to bring order to the functioning of the WG are
to be commended.  

However, there are areas which must be addressed thoroughly before decisions
about numbers of new gTLDs are made. Some of those areas are in the going
forward work. I am not confident that this working group has broad enough
participation to give consideration to the full scope of these issues.  This
is intended as a comment, not a criticism; but one which needs addressing to
ensure that any recommendations are well founded, indeed have broad and
diverse support and are not just the thoughts of those few of us who are
showing up.   

I suggest that consideration be given by the NC to a different and more
limited assignment to WG's.  We have all undoubtedly learned valuable
lessons from the first WGs' experiences.  It is time to incorporate some of
that learning in the WGs and consider reformatting, or modifying them.  It
would also be useful for the DNSO to give consideration to the functioning
of all the WGs, and how to staff them.   I believe it is very hard for the
co-chairs, when they have a personal view, to try to maintain complete
impartiality.  That means that, at a minimum, co-chairs should be chosen who
represent different views.  Finally, the WG has not had a NC liaison and
that should be among the activities which the NC addresses post haste. That
would be further support to the co-chairs.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bret A. Fausett [mailto:baf@fausett.com]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 1:00 PM
To: wg-c@dnso.org
Subject: [wg-c] Vote


Yes. 

    -- Bret