DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [wg-review] Fourth Concern on DNSO Review Report version 1.0

1/24/01 5:47:15 PM, "YJ Park (MINC)" <yjpark@minc.org> wrote:

>Out of Theresa's report
>In this sense, the activities of open fora is important, but debate, and
>votes (use of votes in Working Groups is useful for information gathering
>purposes, but it tends to polarize opinion, and should be used with
>caution )
>should be viewed as valuable intellectual inputs into the consensus
>development process; but they can not be presumed to be the consensus-
>development process itself.

Theresa (I presume),

Does this mean they should be presumed *not* to have any place in the 
consensus-development process itself?  

Also, excuse my asking, but just what exactly is a "consensus development 
process"; wherefore, wherefrom, and wherewith,  "development"?  Just who 
is *developing* what?  and according to which "process"?  Perhaps you 
can help us with a defintion of "consensus" while you're at it?  After all, I 
have seen no evidence of any process in this entire business!  Perhaps, that 
is the process itself (i.e. non-process)?  


Sotiris Sotiropoulos
          Hermes Network, Inc. 

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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>