[wg-c] Respecting the process

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Gentlemen:

Working group C deliberated for almost 9 months and as everyone
knows it was a long and fractious process. However, one item of
consensus managed to emerge consistently and repeatedly, despite
all the vociferous disagreements on other issues. That was the
consensus item that the number of new TLDs introduced in the
initial period should be between 6 and 10.

The 6-10 proposal was voted on at least three times. Each time it
received over 2/3 support, and that support spanned a broad range
of constituencies and viewpoints. The concept was clearly a
compromise and indeed was consciously constructed as the kind of
middle ground that could satisfy all parties. Many of us, myself
included, wanted much larger numbers in the initial round; others
wanted less. Almost all of us managed to agree on this
compromise. And as the comments on the public comment period
showed, there was overwhelming support

I am, therefore, puzzled by your vote on the Names Council
yesterday. I would remind you that you were asked to vote not on
whether you personally -- or your constituency -- believes that
there should be 6-10 new gTLDs. You were asked to vote on whether
that was an item of consensus that could be passed on to the
board.

All of you voted no. On what basis did you make this vote? Please
explain.

In crafting your explanation, please also explain why anyone
should participate in DNSO working groups, if the ultimate
recommendations of the NC do not reflect the agreements of the
group.

--Milton Mueller