[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[wg-c] Agreement on method for consensus determination
The issue I have at this point is that the WG chairman is nominated by the
pNC, until now I was quiet confortable with the pNC as we need ICANN to go
ahead, but today I cannot agree any more.
My proposal is to have an interim chairman nominated by the pNC, and let's
the working to decide of its chairman !!! I think that the co chair is not a
good idea in terms of botton up process and if we need to reach a consensus
we don't have it right now. So let's make the things less dictatorial ....
And please open your mind, otherwise the DNSO process will recieve more and
more criticisms and I don't not think that's the right tie to face to those
> From: Mark C. Langston[SMTP:email@example.com]
> Sent: mardi 13 juillet 1999 16:20
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: [wg-c] Agreement on method for consensus determination
> Until such time as the Secretariat adds me to wg-c-1 and wg-c-2, I'll have
> to post this here.
> I'd like to state that Mr. Connolly's proposal for a consensus mechanism
> sounds workable, with perhaps a few tweaks.
> First, perhaps we could change item 1 so that it eliminates the ability
> of either chair to claim consensus. It would seem that in order for
> consensus to exist, the chairs would have to recognize it jointly.
> Also, with the pDNC appointing a chair, I'd prefer this in order
> to eliminate possible capture issues.
> Second, could the count of "five members of the WG" be changed to a
> percentage, along with the "three members" in item 3?
> Third, from where did the Reporter come? Not that I object to one.
> But are we deciding to elect/appoint one? This should be done
> concurrently/immediately following the election of co-chair.
> Finally, who runs the voting mechanism/votebot? I would very much
> prefer that this be a neutral party.
> I'm voicing these concerns (1) because other members of the WG who
> are not part of group 1 may not have read Mr. Connolly's ideas, and
> (2) because once this mechanism is established, there's a strong
> possibility it will be adopted by the other WGs. Therefore, I'd prefer
> we get it right the first time.
> This is a very positive step in the right direction, and if we can get
> this out of the way, we can get on with our tasks.
> Mark C. Langston Let your voice be heard:
> email@example.com http://www.idno.org
> Systems Admin http://www.icann.org
> San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org