[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [wg-c] consensus call results

To: <wg-c@dnso.org>
Subject: Re: [wg-c] consensus call results
From: "Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 08:58:16 -0800
References: <199912201739.JAA06654@agamemnon.home.com>
Sender: owner-wg-c@dnso.org

> 4)  We redefine "rough consensus", which has happened often enough in
ICANN
>     to suggest we'd be better off with a roll of the die for what
>     constitues "consensus",

Why is this time any different?

Christopher

References:
- Re: [wg-c] consensus call results
  - From: "Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>

Prev by Date: Re: [wg-c] consensus call results
Next by Date: Re: [wg-c] consensus call results
Prev by thread: Re: [wg-c] consensus call results
Next by thread: RE: [wg-c] consensus call results
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread