Consensus - Was: [ga] Review Task Force List is now publicly archived

["Roberto Gaetano" <ga_list@hotmail.com>]

I concur with Bret's comment.
Is there any disagreement to posting this concern as the concern of the GA 
(which means that we keep the concept of consensus)?
It will also be nice if the GA could come to an agreement on a definition of 
consensus. If I remember correctly, the leading example we used in former 
discussions on the subject was the IETF consensus-building process.
Maybe Harald or Sandy can point to some RFCs that we can use to start with, 
as soon as they are back from London.
Incidentally, talking about Sandy, I like the "IETF Guidelines for Conduct" 
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-poisson-code-04.txt), and I 
would not mind using that draft as the basis for the GA's "code of conduct" 
(mutatis mutandis, obviously). But this we can discuss another time.

Thoughts?

Regards
Roberto


>From: Bret Fausett <baf@fausett.com>
>To: <DannyYounger@cs.com>, <ga@dnso.org>
>Subject: Re: [ga] Review Task Force List is now publicly archived
>Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 23:15:56 -0700
>
>Thanks for posting this, Danny.
>
>A couple of comments on the agenda items 1 and 6...
>
>"DannyYounger@cs.com" <DannyYounger@cs.com> wrote:
> > 1. Working groups. Lead: Philip.
> > - "To turn the WG D procedures into a sharper set of guidelines".
> > I posted this to the virtual site early July and have had no comment 
>yet.
> > Please look at it and either tell me OK or suggest a change. I will 
>construe
> > silence as consent. Deadline 15 August. ACTION ALL PLEASE.
>
>Keep in mind that the guidelines proposed by WG-D are light and flexible 
>*by
>design.* We looked at alternatives, tried some more rigid guidelines in
>earlier drafts, and came to the conclusion that the rules ought to be
>flexible enough to account for a variety of issues and modes of working.
>Those who had participated in many IETF working groups felt particularly
>strong about the need to maintain lightweight and flexible rules of
>procedure.
>
> > 6. Consensus.  Lead Milton
> > Recommend to the NC a practical definition of consensus for the purposes 
>of
> > NC consultation activities.
> > Milton had earlier thoughts on this suggesting that we should drop the 
>word
> > consensus and just suggest certain majority or super majority rules for 
>DNSO
> > groups. This seems like a good way forward. Milton - please advise 
>progress
> > or post to the virtual workroom. Deadline Aug 15.
>
>Dropping the word "consensus" would be a mistake for the simple reason that
>all of the contracts with registries and registrars bind those entities to
>ICANN "consensus policies." That term has a particular legal significance
>within ICANN. Since you can't rewrite those contracts, you'll want to draft
>you rules in account for them. You don't want to run the risk that the NC
>passes something but the affected parties aren't bound because what the NC
>did doesn't meet the definition in the contracts about what is a
>"consensus."
>
>      -- Bret
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

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