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

Re: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Schedule - Is a full day needed ?

On 3 August 1999, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> wrote:

>On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 11:46:13PM +0100, Michael Froomkin wrote:
>> This is unacceptable and unwarranted and does not represent a consensus
>> of the working group.  I most strenuously object.  
>> I further submit that any procedure which claims this report is the
>> result of a consensus of the working group in which I participated in
>> seriously flawed.
>Throughout all proceedings of the DNSO we should understand the word
>"consensus" to mean "rough consensus" as exemplified by the IETF. 

No, we most certainly should not.  In fact, as a member of WG-D, you
know better than most that the mechanisms for determining consensus
have not yet been decided upon nor have they been enacted.  And they
will not be, until WG-D produces a report which is adopted.  Of
course, you're free to attempt to push your IETF procedures there.  In
fact, you have been.  I note that at least one previous chair of an
IETF working group has criticized these procedures in WG-D as
inappropriate for ICANN.

You continue to blindly trumpet the IETF procedures, refusing to
open your eyes, look around, and notice that this is not the IETF.

Volume and repetition can't make it true, Kent.

>The dictionary definition sometimes gives the impression that
>"consensus" means "unanimity", and that is not what is intended.  It
>sometimes happens that an IETF WG generates a product despite
>continuous, strenuous, and vociferous objections from individuals who
>are members of the group. 

...and all of this would be timely and relevant, if WG-A were an IETF
WG.  It's not.  It sometimes happens that an organization generates
procedures despite continuous, strenuous, and vociferous objects from
individuals who are members of the group.

>It should be apparent that a rule that requires unanimity for
>progress would make things very difficult -- the classic instance of
>the "tyranny of the minority"...

It should be even more obvious that Mr. Froomkin wasn't criticizing 
the report based on lack of unanimity.

Nothing to see here, folks.  Move along.

Mark C. Langston	     			Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org				     http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin					    http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA					     http://www.dnso.org