RE: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises...

[Jean-Michel Becar <Jean-Michel.Becar@etsi.fr>]

> From: Jonathan Weinberg
> 	I think we can do better, though.  So far, by my count, 
> my compromise
> proposal for "6-10 new gTLDs followed by an evaluation 
> period" has gotten
> expressions of support from 14 folks, and expressions of 
> opposition from
> seven.  (Petter is one of the seven.)  While we're not there 
> yet, I think
> that's awfully close to the sort of response that would 
> justify a formal
> vote to determine whether there is rough consensus within the 
> WG on this
> point.  (What counts, to my mind, in gauging whether there is 
> a sufficient
> possibility of rough consensus to justify a vote, is the 
> ratio of expressed
> support to expressed opposition.  As RFC 2418 puts it: "In 
> general, the
> dominant view of the working group shall prevail. . . . Note 
> that 51% of
> the working group does not qualify as 'rough consensus' and 
> 99% is better
> than rough.")

I support that.
And now let's start the work on the Registry testbed selection criteria.
***** PLEASE try do not spend too much time on how many TLDs ********

Jean-Michel Bécar
becar@etsi.fr
http://www.etsi.org
E.T.S.I. Project Manager
Tel	: +33 (0)4 92 94 43 15
Mobile  	: +33 (0)6 82 80 19 31
Fax      	: +33 (0)4 92 38 52 15



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:weinberg@mail.msen.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 13, 1999 15:54
> To: Petter Rindforth; wg-c@dnso.org; Javier
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] SV: Consensus and compromises...
> 
> 
> 	I agree with much of what Petter says.
> 
> 1) As Javier notes, we reached consensus long ago (in early 
> to mid-July)
> that there should be new gTLDs.
> 
> 2) ICANN is currently finishing work on a "cybersquatting" dispute
> resolution process.   Whether there should be a "famous 
> marks" process is
> outside our jurisdiction, but that's fine; it just means that the
> desirability of such a process is one of the "details to be 
> suggested by
> others" that Petter refers to.
> 
> 3) This WG has discussed contact information issues only glancingly.
> Several folks have urged that such a system must exist, while Javier
> reposted a message from Michael Froomkin making the case that contact
> information availability should be limited in at least one 
> TLD.  In any
> event, though, this is something we can talk about.
> 
> 4 & 5) As I stated a couple of weeks ago, I agree that any 
> proposal that
> can reach consensus in this WG will have to involve the rollout of a
> limited number of new gTLDs followed by an evaluation period.
> 
> 
> 	What do folks think?  (It would be especially good to 
> hear from people who
> haven't already made their positions clear; it can be 
> frustrating, in this
> WG, to figure out where the "silent majority" stands.)
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
> Jonathan Weinberg
> co-chair, wg-c
> weinberg@msen.com
> 
> 
> 
> At 09:23 AM 9/13/99 +0200, Petter Rindforth wrote:
> >Dear Javier and All others,
> >In a try to summarize the discussion so far, I would say that I see
> possibilities to reach a rough consensus on a few more items:
> >
> >1) There should be new gTLDs, provided that
> >
> >2) there are linked to a speedy and effective dispute 
> resolution process
> (details to be suggested by others), and
> >
> >3) an easy and cost-effective system for obtaining full 
> contact information
> >
> >4) there should be a limited number of new gTLDs to start with (some
> "how", "how many" and "which" questions remains to be answered), 
> >
> >5) followed by an evaluation period ("how long", "what shall be
> evaluated", "by whom" and "for what purpuse" remains).
> >
> >INHO, this is the result of the work of this WG so far, but 
> it is at least
> a starting point. I do not believe that we will be able to 
> make consensus
> on all the remaining questions ("the details") but I do 
> believe that we can
> all agree with the general idea listed above. 
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Petter
> >
> >-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> >Frĺn: Javier <javier@aui.es>
> >Till: wg-c@dnso.org <wg-c@dnso.org>
> >Datum: den 12 september 1999 12:23
> >
> >>This group has reached full consensus on only one item: 
> that there should 
> >>be new gTLDs.
> >>
> >>Any further discussion of this issue only distracts the 
> seach for consensus 
> >>on other issues.
> >>
> >>Javier
>