DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: RE: [council] attending to content and consensus

I'm sure fellow councillors are tired of 
this, but I need to set the record straight
about a few things. 

The other NCDNHC Adcom members and constituency
members have tried to explain to Vany many, many
times that we cannot have an online vote on a
moving target. An online vote takes at least three 
weeks to implement. We have had this draft in 
hand for one day! The draft is changing (in details) 
quite literally daily. The final NC vote on it is in 
less than two weeks. 

The current draft is quite similar in its 
content and policy objectives to the one we
voted on. Major noncommercial organizations such as
the ALA, ACM, CPSR, Peacenet Korea, and all other 
Adcom members support this. Moreover, Vany's
preferred policy, which was introduced in MdR and
died _for lack of a second_ has been repeatedly and
overwhelmingly rejected by our membership.

It makes a mockery of DNSO process to insist that 
because every single detail of a policy document 
hasn't been subjected to a full roll call vote of 
every single constituency that we have no idea whether 
it commands support. Yet this is precisely what Vany
is saying.

Caroline is right - we may need to set up procedures
to handle objections, but NC needs to make it
clear that it will not encourage vocal minorities
who have decisively lost policy battles within a
constituency to exploit council members' lack of
knowledge about the internal goings-on within a 
constituency in order to hijack a policy consensus.
That is an abuse of our time as well as an abuse 
of the DNSO process. 

I apologise to other Council members for the
need to waste your time with this.

>>> vany_martinez@yahoo.com 01/04/02 21:09 PM >>>
Hi Caroline:

The NCDNHC has certain rules for consensus.

Thefinal consensus in the NCDNHC is got when we
conduct online votation in the issues under

However, this is a partial consensus that is usually
achieved in the face to face meetings.  The spirit of
this is to deliver some partial results from the
NCDNCH to the Names Council and ICANN Board, but we
warning that we will circulate such results in our
mailing list and take all the necesary steps to
a total consensus resulting in our official positions
in the NCDNHC.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>