Re: [ga] Consensus

[Eric Dierker <eric@HI-TEK.COM>]

One should review these matters, in reference to Roelands post.  This
is easy research in that there is a void.  The void is astonishing
in light of the ramifications. - A UDRP that effects millions.

http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-a/Arc00/maillist.html
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/question-b/Arc00/msg00012.html
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/question-b/Arc00/maillist.html

I do not question Roeland's recollection of events but am questioning the procedural methods used as is Roeland.  The manner in which this Review was handled is enough to make the Wg-Review look like a procedural bible.

Pursuant to ICANN bylaws and the White Papers and the MOU and the contract with the DoC the UDRP is certainly voidable if not down right fraudulent.  But then again who cares?

Trust is a funny word to use here, I suppose it is akin to trusting a scorpion to act like a scorpion.

Sincerely,
Eric

Roeland Meyer wrote:

Hello Jon,

> From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:weinberg@mail.msen.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 8:18 AM

> It may be that, given the current state of the ga, we just
> can't follow the "rough consensus" approach of RFC 2418; that
> the members will not recognize any informal decision as
> legitimate, so that nothing can be decided without the
> full trappings of a full-scale, formal vote.  If so,
> I think it's a shame, though -- it's testimony to the
> dysfunctionality of this body, and yet another obstacle to
> accomplishing any actual work.

Yes, it is ALL a trust issue. We have all decried the UDRP. The UDRP was
instituted via DNSO/WG-A. Joaquim used the IETF "consensus call" method. The
problem is that it is perceived that he used the "consensus call" to pound
through a result that didn't really have consensus. Regardless of either of
our reletive opinions in that matter you must surely recognise that, lacking
a recorded vote or poll, the entire output of WG-A is forever tainted. There
is no clearly supported work-product.