[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Schedule - Is a full day needed ?
Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 11:46:13PM +0100, Michael Froomkin wrote:
> > This is unacceptable and unwarranted and does not represent a consensus
> > of the working group. I most strenuously object.
> > I further submit that any procedure which claims this report is the
> > result of a consensus of the working group in which I participated in
> > seriously flawed.
> Throughout all proceedings of the DNSO we should understand the word
> "consensus" to mean "rough consensus" as exemplified by the IETF.
> The dictionary definition sometimes gives the impression that
> "consensus" means "unanimity", and that is not what is intended. It
> sometimes happens that an IETF WG generates a product despite
> continuous, strenuous, and vociferous objections from individuals who
> are members of the group.
In other words, the working groups are a farce and will be treated
in the same way that the participants at the Monterrey DNSO meetings
were treated, that is, they will be ignored, since the DNSO's agenda
is set and won't be altered for anything as unimportant as due
process or dissent. Conclusion: the dnso itself is nothing more than
a cover to legitimize the agenda of CORE/ISOC.
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF INDEPENDENT INTERNET USERS
http://www.iciiu.org (ICIIU) firstname.lastname@example.org