RE: [wg-review] [CONSENSUS] IS A LOADED TERM...

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

This is completely absurd.

Sotiris, what in the world were you referring to when you started this 
thread? I'm honestly curious. This group has recommended, based on the 
report from Joop's polling booth question, that any reports from the group 
be called majority vote if they are. So be it - since that is what they 
will be, that's what they should be called.

Who supposedly is putting out a "pro-consensus" platform? Haven't you 
noticed that while both Kent and I support consensus processes, we differ 
wildly in what we mean by it?

Are you concerned about  Kent Crispin's paper? Kent's paper is NOT a group 
report, it's a personal position paper, clearly within the guidelines 
established for including individual position papers as appendices to the 
preliminary report. Another example of such an appended paper would be 
Jonathan Weinberg's.

As such it contains some observations we individually and collectively 
agree or disagree with - but they are HIS positions, identified as HIS 
positions, and NONE of us has the right to say "you can't say that". 
Calling for a vote for something described as the WG's position is one 
thing - calling for a vote on a PERSONAL report appended to the WG's is 
another thing, and I really can't support that, especially since that has 
already been established by precedent and without a vote.

As observed thorough the question Joop asked in the Polling Booth, a 
majority of THIS working group wish to call the results based on majority 
votes majority votes. The question of "2/3"= consensus does not occur.

Of the polls I established, only ONE is set up on a consensus model. I 
intend to report on that later this evening, if not distracted by long 
threads, along with the ones on the Names Council, the General Assembly, 
and Constituencies.

On the questions of "are constituencies an appropriate model"  vs "should 
there be an individual constituency if the current structure is retained", 
the results to date on this are not nearly as clear cut on the first 
question as on the second.

Several different polls, run in different places by different people, show 
a very large majority for creating an individual constituency. (BTW, 
Sotiris, you voted "yes" on that one in the email poll). That's pretty 
clear-cut.

On the question of constituencies, however, results are not so clear cut.

On the "Domain Name Definition" Poll, responses to the question at present 
appear to be

Abolished = 17
Retained = 3
Don't Know = 3
Other = 3

Whereas, when asked in the constituency poll "Is a constituency structure a 
functional method for subgrouping in the DNSO?" the answers are

Yes = 14
No = 11
Don't Know = 7

This indicates to me that the question needs a good bit more consideration, 
while support for an IDNH has been consistent when measured several 
different ways.

Lastly, impassioned calls for process when one isn't needed do NOTHING but 
disrupt the group. If you are calling for a vote on including Kent's paper, 
the answer is "no", because that would be discriminatory and inappropriate. 
If you are calling for a vote on whether or not this group will call 
something "consensus" without documentation, that's been done, too.

So what are you looking for?

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