Re: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Schedule - Is a full day needed ?

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 08:18 AM 3/08/1999 -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
<prof.Froomkin>
>>> 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.
<kent>
>> Throughout all proceedings of the DNSO we should understand the word
>> "consensus" to mean "rough consensus" as exemplified by the IETF. 
>
>we do?  i missed that in the documentation.  not that i am agreeing or
>disagreeing.  just that your assertion seems to be merely that, your
>personal assertion.
>
>and, in the particular case of wg-a, the process was exceeding flawed, to
>put it as politely as possible, and the result is so far from consensus as
>to make your assertion irrelevant anyway.
>

This view is shared by ISOCNZ, who has submitted it in polite language both
to ICANN and to Becky Burr.
vide http://www.isocnz.org.nz/nzwga_aug99.html



--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  , bootstrap  of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org