Re[2]: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Schedule - Is a full day needed ?

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

Tuesday, August 03, 1999, 9:55:01 AM, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 08:18:24AM -0700, Randy Bush 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. 
>> 
>> we do?  i missed that in the documentation.  not that i am agreeing or
>> disagreeing.  just that your assertion seems to be merely that, your
>> personal assertion.

> As was Froomkins screech of "travesty!".  People very frequently make
> personal assertions, you included.  

> However, if you go back through the history of the DNSO, ICANN, and
> the IFWP, there has been a *great deal* of discussion of the meaning
> of the term "consensus", revolving around exactly this issue.  My
> point was simply that if we use a definition of "consensus" that
> means "unanimity", we will never get anything done.  Do you disagree
> with that? Do you disagree with my characterization of IETF processes
> as using "rough consensus"?

And you try and color the points Mr Froomkin made as a small amount of
dissent, when in fact that is not the case.  You have turned his point
that consensus does not exist, into a debate over whether consensus
means unanimity, and that was not the standard Mr Froomkin was
applying, clearly.

--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934


(IDNO MEMBER)
Support the Cyberspace Association, the 
constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners 
http://www.idno.org