RE: [wg-review] Confusion between majority vote and consensus

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

There are 22 millions of domain names, there are hundreds millions of 
Internet users, and 150 people, some being pseudos, with may be 15 to 25 
active on a mailing list lost in the universe. Is this not a few number to 
talk about *majority vote* to reform the world? ....

Let be pragmatic: this WG-Review is only a few people concerned by the poor 
results of the DNSO. The DNSO which is a goodwill Consulting Team on Domain 
Name issues to advise the Board of the ICANN. Everyone is self selected. 
The system may work (is it up to now? we say no) only if we agree that 
anyone may veto a proposition.

This because we represent no one. We may only hope from the openess of the 
list that most of the much needed qualifications are present and 
will  mutually help and filter each others. And we know this hope is just a 
dream because:
- only a small proportion of the languages and cultures are represented,
- the very matter of our "specialization" (the domain name) is still 
undefined and when Sotiris tries to make a definition he is requested to go 
and play somewhere else.

If 2/3 of us, out of lack of qualification in Chinese propose an UDRP which 
has no meaning for a Chinese this will not really help the ICANN to retain 
China under the a-root! A consensus is when nobody objects with good 
reasons. A good advice to the ICANN is when it comes from a consensus of 
competent people professionnally qualfied in the broadest number of fields, 
possibly all. concerned. Should I not say "Period".

There is a say I like: "If you are really alone in your thinking then your 
are right because the world cannot count so many wise people".

Jefsey

On 03:05 06/01/01, Greg Burton said:
>At 07:01 PM 1/5/01, Joanna Lane wrote:
>>Agreed, but I believe Milton suggested decision making by 3/5ths rather than
>>majority vote, and this question doesn't give that option.
>
>Thanks for noticing, Joanna. I intended it to mean "by some form of 
>majority vote" rather than "simple majority" - the bylaws have different 
>reporting procedures for 2/3, simple majority, etc.
>
>><So - here is another statement - can we agree on it?
>>
>>Calling the current DNSO process "consensus" is misleading. The Board
>>should either amend the bylaws to reflect that decision making is by
>>majority vote, or adopt a true consensus process.
>
>Regards,
>Greg
>
>sidna@feedwriter.com
>
>--
>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