RE: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem

["Cindy Merry" <tomerrys@inter-linc.net>]

What is IETF, UDRP, and IMHO?

Thanks, Cindy Merry

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On Behalf
Of Roeland Meyer
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 9:53 AM
To: 'Milton Mueller'; wg-review@dnso.org; kent@songbird.com;
eric@springbreaktravel.com
Subject: RE: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem

Make that three. The "consensus" is what led to UDRP recommendations from
WG-A. No one can ever point to records that proved that WG-A was, in
reality, in favor of UDRP as written. There is no accountability, no
record,
in short... no decision. Only, an arbitrary declaration from the titular
leadership. Many of us disagreed. But, DNSO waved the "magic wand" of
consensus. It is problematic that, no one can ever point to this
"consensus"
though.

That was only ONE example. To look at it another way, think about when
activity involves hundreds of thousands of members, let alone millions.
Consensus model is not scalable to those numbers. Legally, it is also not
defensible, in such an environment.

ICANN/DNSO needs to make decisions that are incontrivertable. The consensus
model will not give us that either. One result, as we have seen in the
past,
is the constant re-hashing of older decisions, preventing us from moving
forward to new issues and decisions. Simply, it will prevent us from
getting
out of our own shadow.

There are some whom would hold up the holy spectre of the IETF. I submit
that IETF effectiveness has been dropping off, as of late. IETF is also a
technical body, with clear-cut technical issues before it (or should be).
Like it or not, this is a political group, period. The issues are not
nearly
as clear-cut/definable as those that the IETF has to deal with. Those who
think otherwise are nieve, IMHO. Those who espouse [and don't believe]
otherwise are disingenuous. Because of this, there is much more contention
among issues where both sides are right, for various definitions of
"right".
Negotiated positions need to be documented sufficiently that we can
successfully resist going back over them, time and again.

In short, we need a record that we can point at, that shows how the
decision
was reached, what the entry-criteria was, what the exit-criteria was, what
relevent points were taken into account, as well as the MEASURABLE results.
Otherwise, the decision is ... NOT a decision and deserves to be re-hashed.

--
ROELAND M.J. MEYER
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
TEL: +001 925 373 3954
FAX: +001 925 373 9781
http://www.mhsc.com
mailto: rmeyer@mhsc.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu]
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 8:12 AM
> To: wg-review@dnso.org; kent@songbird.com; eric@springbreaktravel.com
> Subject: RE: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem
>
>
>
> No, we don't "have to" work with it. And the problem,  is
> that no one seems to know what it (consensus) means anyway. I
> agree with Karl. Well-stated rules, clear-cut votes on
> clearly stated issues. That's the way to proceed.
>
> >>> "Eric" <eric@springbreaktravel.com> 01/05/01 10:58AM >>>
>
> Regardless of how any of us feel about consensus, it is the
> structure that that we have to work with for this WG.
>
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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