Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT

["Greg Schuckman" <schuckman@starpower.net>]

Dear Colleagues:

Before I cast my votes, let me state that Jonathan Weinberg posted on Monday
(and several times in the past) the list rules but they have been virtually
ignored.  If this working group is to have any chance of being workable for
the time it has left, not to mention inclusive, there has to be enforcement
of the rules.  Too often, the majority of us in the wg-c have been subject
to mass postings that should have been taken offline from the start.  I did
not sign up to watch the saga unfold between a few members of the wg-c;  I
signed up to participate in a dialogue about new gTLDs with a thoughtful
group of people from around the world on a rather important subject.
Jonathan, please, put an end to the static on this listserv and focus the
energies and attention of the wg-c as a whole on the subject at hand.
Enough said.


PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE

[YES]  The initial rollout should include a range of top level domains, from
open
TLDs to restricted TLDs with more limited scope.

PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO

[YES*]  Criteria for assessing a gTLD application, subject to current
technical
constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should be based on all of
the following principles...

*  The footnote here is that I would prefer to look at the S/K principles as
guidelines, not necessarily hard and fast criteria for selecting the string.
There is a difference in the semantics as these principles (as worded) sound
compulsory  as opposed to calling them "guidelines" which are encouraged,
but voluntary.  I would certainly hope that those gTLD applications that
comformed to the guidelines would be more favorably received than those that
did not.

PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE

[NO]  WG-C recommends that the Names Council charter a working group to
develop
policy regarding internationalized domain names using non-ASCII characters.

A strong case has been made that the IETF has domain over this issue and
ICANN should not interfere with that effort.  Perhaps the selection of a
formal liaison between ICANN and IETF on this issue would suffice.

Respectfully,
Greg Schuckman