[ga] Gaining Consensus on the GA List

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

Hi Abel

On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 05:58:20 +0000, Abel Wisman wrote:

> As Chuck Gomes announced they will then be looking for comment from other
> constituencies.
> Though I seriously doubt they were planning that, since they wanted the next
> 14 days to "iron out the difficulties" he did make this statement in public
> and therefore will be held to it.

It has been my experience that Chuck Gomes works towards promoting VeriSign's
interests in a most ethical way.  Indeed, Chuck's advocacy does not
necessarily
coincide with what VeriSign might be expected to do in their own best
interests.

Generally speaking, it is expected that "consensus" can only be obtained with
the support of other constituencies.  Chuck would therefore see that as an
appropriate course of action.  Other Verisign officers might not agree with
that approach.

So I would ask that we afford Chuck a reasonable assumption of propriety.

> He welcomed feedback from a proposed workgroup, though the voting on that
> dissapeared for smoe reason,

Despite the fact that a number of people on the list support, or oppose, a
particular proposal, it is sometimes very hard to get them to come out and say
so.  I am sure that some, at least, work on the basis of lurking on the list
to see how things develop.

They know that when the issue, whatever it is, gets focussed there is likely
to be a formal vote in which they will participate.

Personally I think that such an approach makes sense.  However, it does mean
that leading participants must try to anticipate all the arguments.

> nontheless itis in my opinion a chance to at
> least be heard in this case, whether they will use our opinion is ofcourse a
> totally different matter.

Given that it is so hard to reach consensus on the list, it is a pity that the
Names Council does not heed whatever results.  As I have said, the list is
often very noisy but I see that as a function of the democratic process.

> I kindly submit to the chair that within the next 24 hours a decision is
> sought after in order to comply with this chance of being part of this for
> real or that we will again succumb in bitter personal flame wars.

What we need is debate on the issues without any deterioration into personal
insults or similar attacks.  Even with the best of wills, this is sometimes
quite hard to do.

However, I would expect Alexander Svensson to keep the lid on.

> If the maillinglists with DNSO are a problem then I offer standing this
> assembly maillinglists galore, for every workgroup  that wants to form
itself
> or with approval.

Thank you.  But we should try to work within the system first.  Let's see how
the wind blows over the next few days or so.

> Let us try to create in short term an open workgroup in which we try to come
> as close as possible to a consensus on this topic and draft a proposal for
> the full GA to vote on and with support from the GA and the chair we might
> accomplish a rare fact.

I agree that we need a workgroup.  I will develop this more tomorrow.

> Let us temporarily forget longterm solutions and fix this job before we
again
> start a long discussion on the legitimacy of workgroups without support from
> the NC, who obviously have not even bothered to react to a request for such.

The NC will not respond to requests from individual list members.  Any
proposal must come from the GA as a whole or at least from the Chair on its
behalf.

> Time given to us obviously is not sufficient to walk the walk, so lets jump
> the jump

Sure.  But let's jump in the right direction :-)

> abel

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

PS    This is my last post today.



--
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