Re: Consensus, anyone?

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Thom,

  Well here we go again.  I certainly do not have the same feeling
from postings that there is a consensus on sharing.  There does seem
to be a consensus on sharing SOME gTLDs, but not a totally shared
model.

  I would tend to agree that there is no consensus on the lottery.

  I do not agree that there is a consensus on 60 day waiting period
or a 60 day publication period. At least the postings I have read
would support that (See Archives).

  It does appear that the IAHC is going to stick to 7 new gTLDs
at first.  This is unfortunate.

  It also appears, due to lack of comment reguarly from IAHC members
that it really is of little consequence as to what has been posted
that what you see on the Dec 19 draft will pretty much be in the
final draft.  No offense, but that is just how I see it currently.

  I hope that I am wrong in this respect.  We shall see.  But in as
much as there has not been alot of discourse from members and some
lurkers on this list (I acn only immagine the private e-mail related
to this list) we all can expect very little change on the major
contended portions of the Dec 19 draft, to remain pretty much 
"as is".  There may be some wording changes, but that is all I 
would expect.

  Call me any name you care to, I am sure I have heard it all befor
on this list.  Call me a pecimist, whatever.  

  I would like to congratulate several on this list for their wonderful
ideas and intrest.  There has, in my humble opinion very good
suggestions
from several people on this list.  Good job!!  

  

Thom Stark wrote:
> 
> Christopher Ambler inquires:
> 
> > With all the talk about CORE, and how central registries and depositories
> > should work, is it a safe assumption that the shared model has received
> > consensus? If not, why is nobody speaking up?
> 
> I think that, with a couple of exceptions, most of the members of the
> list have come to the conclusion that the shared gTLDs model is what
> we'll end up with.
> 
> I, personally, favor shared gTLDs.
> 
> > What about the 60-day issue? Consensus for or against?
> 
> My impression is that a few folks who think the issue of covering the
> registrars' butts against being dragged into trademark disputes is
> paramount, and that the waiting period will somehow accomplish that, are
> firmly in favor of a 60-day wait.  Everybody else seems to me to have
> concluded that a 60-day "official" publication period accomplishes much
> the same end in a considerably less onerous fashion.
> 
> I, personally, am among the second group.
> 
> > What about the lottery? Number of participants or no limit? What about the
> > gTLDs to be created? Is the fact that the draft calls for only 7 and that
> > the IAHC will decide them going to be approved, then, without much more
> > comment?
> 
> The lottery appears to me to have achieved no consensus.  However, it
> seems to me that the suggestion last week that the lottery be modified
> so as to include all qualified applicants in a queue, with new additions
> to the queue being made at one-month intervals from among the applicants
> accumulate that month makes very good sense.  That way, no applicant gets
> excluded, except for cause.  The further suggestion that applicants be
> permitted to strike private agreements to trade places in line on any
> mutually-agreeable basis also seems eminently sensible.
> 
> I hope the IAHC's next draft will include both provisions.
> 
> I don't see a consensus on the gTLDs to be created, either in terms of
> how many should be in the initial group or how the names should be
> chosen.  I *do* see a majority forming in favor of functional TLD names
> (i.e.--.SEX, .MOVIE, etc.), but, as someone pointed out recently, a
> majority and a consensus are not synonymous.
> 
> As you know, I favor picking functional names.
> 
> I think it's inevitable that the IAHC will pick the first group of names.
> I suspect CORE will probably pick any additional ones, although the next
> IAHC draft may award that function to some other body.  I seriously
> doubt that the IAHC will pick any but the intial group.
> 
> I haven't heard any strong arguments in favor of any specific number
> besides the 7 in the draft.  By default, I suspect that 7 is what we'll
> get.
> 
> For the record, I personally think that there ought to be 3 gTLDs in the
> first group and 3 new registrars chosen.  I think that 3 registrars is
> the minimum number needed to usefully determine what the operational
> and architectural issues will be to make the new system work, and that,
> once those issues have been decided, it ought to be relatively trivial
> to scale the system up to accomodate a significantly-larger number of
> additional registrars.  Those who are champing at the bit will hate this
> suggestion, I suspect, but, in my view, picking the minimum set of new
> registrars is likely to permit the technical issues to be solved in the
> minimum time.  If I'm correct, then picking the minimum set to begin
> with should actually permit the rest of the applicants to begin operation
> sooner, rather than later, despite how counter-intuitive that might seem
> at first blush.
> 
> > Will the IAHC publish an interim draft based on comment to date? There is
> > precious little time left in the public comment phase, an interim draft would
> > go a very long way towards demonstratig that public comment is, indeed, being
> > taken into account.
> 
> Good question.  However, whether the next draft is an interim or the
> final one, what will demonstrate the IAHC is taking public comment into
> account is the contents of the draft, itself.  In my opinion, an interim
> draft would mostly have the effect of demonstrating how the public
> comment *thus far* has affected the IAHC's own consensus on what the
> shape of the final draft will be.  It would also, of course, act as a
> second "stake in the ground" toward a final draft.
> 
> I'd like to see the IAHC issue an interim draft, but I can certainly see
> the arguments some members are likely to raise against the idea.  In
> particular, given the amount of work involved, I'm sure the IAHC members
> aren't eager to have certain of the list members begin flaming them all
> over again.  I preach the gospel of tolerance and circumspection, but I
> try to keep in mind that the IAHC folks are human..and that nobody in
> their right mind actively seeks out new opportunities to be insulted,
> reviled and disparaged.
> 
> Hmm..wait a minute, strike that.  Make it, instead, "nobody in their
> right mind actively seeks out new opportunities to be insulted, reviled
> and disparaged *outside of a sexual context*."  After all, I *am writing
> from the San Francisco area..

Regards,

-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. 
Phone :972-447-1878
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com