[wg-d] Interim measures: second thoughts

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	I posted a message to this list four days ago, urging that I
thought WG-C still had a good shot at reaching negotiated compromise on
the key issues before us.  After a few additional days of trying to work
through those issues, I'm more pessimistic.  I'm coming round to the view
that we simply will not be able to find solutions that will satisfy enough
of the working group members to command rough consensus; not enough of the
WG members are willing to compromise.  (In particular -- in my personal
opinion -- some of the folks most interested in a slow/sparse/highly
controlled rollout seem unwilling to make even small concessions.)  On
that basis, I'm willing to agree with Javier that option (v) is our only
realistic choice.


	I'd like to raise the question, though, of what happens next, and
where the DNSO should or can go from here.  As Karl points out, ICANN's
by-laws seem to contemplate that the Names Council will only forward to
the Board proposals that reflect "community consensus."  While the WG-C
report will not be the end of the DNSO process, I suspect that the DNSO
will be unable to formulate a consensus recommendation on this issue.  If
so, will that mean that the Names Council can forward to the Board *no*
proposal for gTLD expansion?  That would be ironic, to say the least,
since the only thing WG-C was ever able to agree on was that there should
be more gTLDs.  Does it mean that any significant group opposing gTLD
expansion (or favoring only token expansion) can effectively veto that
process?  How do we approach this?


Jon



Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, WG-C
weinberg@msen.com