[ga] Re: Is there a third consensus ?

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Vint,
Thank you for your response.

On 01:56 23/03/02, vint cerf said:
>At 04:05 PM 3/22/2002 +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> >I asked yesterday if everyone agreed (consensus) that the resolution of 
> the situation created by:
> >- our consensus that Lynn's evaluation of the inability of the ICANN to 
> currentrly fullfil its mission is correct
> >- our consensus that Lynn's propositions are inadequate
>well I would say either incomplete or worth adapting.

True. This is why I used "inadequate" to permit every evaluation. Lynn has 
been the first to call for a review. This is why I assume we have a 
consensus. Consensus is when *everyone* can agree should their prerequistes 
be met. Implementing it is to meet these prerequistes. Usually no more easy 
than uncovering the consensus...

> >can only result from a consensus of the Internet Community and needs it 
> to succeed.
>consensus would surely help I think.

Good. IMHO it is necessary (for the retained solution not to be immediately 
circumvented).

> >None has objected yet. Please speak-up now if you object. You will kill 
> the ICANN but you will save our time. will repeat that request until 
> tomorrow. If none seriously object I will consider there is a consensus 
> on that need. I will then ask if there is a consensus on a working method 
> to reach such a consensus. I will also dedicate a site and some time to 
> the organization of that method which has to be very very light and 
> simple and respect but present the work carried by committees.
> >Otherwise I will dedicate that time to the building of a community 
> alternative solution to the ICANN. IMHO we still are in a position to 
> save the ICANN, but there are enough forces on the move for the window to 
> close this WE.
>
>my bias is obvious but I honestly think that so much has gone into making 
>ICANN work that it would be more effective to try to adapt it than to 
>start all over (re-opening many debates whose resolution might take much 
>longer or possibly never gel).

I frankly do not think it is a bias. It sounds good. My effort to proceed 
step by step is to make sure there is no fundamental objection to the 
principle of an ICANN (whatever it may be). So at least we can object to 
further opponents that they had every possibility to speak up. And to treat 
them as disrupters without fearing to be wrong.

The only suggestion I will do is to name our common effort ... "WECANN" :-) 
to emphasize WE all want to find a proper solution (Mike's "We the ICANN"). 
I reserved "wecann.com". It will go to the ICANN review or to an  ICANN 
replacement depending on what the ICANN/Internet Communities say.

Jefsey


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html