Re: [ga] Consensus

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Dear Mr. Heath,

There is no question on consensus, and thank you for pointing that out.  During
discussions we get a feel for what is becoming a good feel.  Some one or several
draft a motion and or opposing motions.  We argue about them and hone the
concepts. (Joanna, Harald, Danny, Sotitiris and the like do the hard work in
drafting and my hat is off those fine folks and I am trying to contribute
likewise) Then we vote in an informal to very formal online process depending on
the gravity.  This type of vote is not a winner/loser vote but merely a method
of documenting the consensus which 90% follows the proposal, because it was
garnered through open and transparent discussion.

{as a challenge I ask anyone to find more than five proposals that actually got
to motions that failed & find three passed motions that supported action finally
taken by the board  -- You have to look through all the WG and Task force
archives, I found 2 & 1 respectively -- NC approval is not board so leave Chair
type voting out.}

Regardless of a few outspoken anti-dotcommoners when things come to a vote it is
because hardworking folks propose it out of a sense of right, and we witness
statistics of consensus.  Watch closely who opposes voting and you will see who
does not want verifiable statistics of consensus.  Joop is our point of light in
this regard, he loves to hear what the people really think and document it.

ERIC

Steven Heath wrote:

> L Gallegos [mailto:jandl@jandl.com] said:
>
> > Please point out the document defining consensus for the GA.  If a
> > vote is not determined by a majority, what is the criteria?
>
> con·sen·sus (kn-snss) n.
>
> 1, An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole: "Among political
> women... there is a clear consensus about the problems women candidates have
> traditionally faced" (Wendy Kaminer).
>
> 2, General agreement or accord: government by consensus.
>
> While it is open to debate what the exact level is 'required' it is norm
> (IMHO) that at least 2/3 support would be required for consensus.
>
> The word has not defined just as we do not define other words that are in
> the dictionary.
>
> The proposed motion while having wide debate on the general issue of ICANN
> .biz vs non ICANN .biz reach nothing like 'wide support' to censure ICANN on
> .biz in the manner outlined.
>
> Perhaps a motion worded differently would reach greater support, such as:
>
> That the DNSO formally issue a statement of concern against the ICANN
> board for the process in the granting of the new gTLD's (including but not
> limited to .biz) and that process of its inclusion in the USG root be
> reviewed by a taskforce.
>
> Now debating this and then calling for a vote might well be more productive.
>
> Steven Heath
> --
> 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

--
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