RE: [ga] RE: Consensus development process

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

Joanna,

Please accept my apologies.  I should have restricted my broad statement to
"within the NC and its associated constituencies."

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joanna Lane [mailto:jo-uk@rcn.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 4:25 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; 'DannyYounger@cs.com'; ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Consensus development process
> 
> 
> on 11/25/01 9:34 AM, Gomes, Chuck at cgomes@verisign.com wrote:
> 
> > Danny,
> > 
> > Please show me the consensus development process and then 
> help me understand
> > its legitimacy in terms of representation of all 
> stakeholders, in terms of
> > documentation of of both proponents and those who disagree, 
> in terms of
> > effective outreach, etc.  All I have seen are efforts to 
> skirt around such a
> > process.  Working Group D made a good start at identifying 
> what needed to be
> > done, but little has been done to follow up on that work.
> > 
> > Chuck
> >
> 
> I have resisted this thread up till now because I am in no 
> way claiming that
> work on a concrete consensus building mechanism, suitable for 
> an online
> general assembly such as the DNSO GA, as undertaken by myself 
> and co-author
> Bill Lovell over the last 6 months, namely the Best Practices 
> project, is in
> any way "valid" in the sense that it is officially up and 
> running, when
> clearly it is not, (indeed the thing is not yet finished), 
> but please....it
> is not true to say that nothing has been done since WG-D.
> 
> Challenging work such as this takes time, but it *is* going 
> on quietly in
> the background, and I would not want you to overlook the fact 
> that the first
> draft of Parts I, II, III (and shortly IV) are already 
> published on the DNSO
> website in Documents of the GA, at the URLs noted in my 
> signature file.
> 
> Comments received when this work was originally released in 
> August were very
> encouraging, and he may have forgotten that I specifically 
> referred to Chuck
> Gomes for his personal views at that time, and since then, we 
> have been
> developing the next stage, nad have accomodated various 
> suggestions from the
> community received at that time, all to result in a Version 
> 2, that will be
> released shortly. 
> 
> This project does not conflict with WG-D or with Danny's list of items
> needed for "consensus" as per his post to the NC of October 
> 8th recently
> reposted here, indeed it builds upon it, but it has to be said that it
> certainly does conflict with any spurious suggestion that 
> consensus can be
> defined by a 2/3 vote of the Names Council, or indeed any 
> other method that
> does not stand up to even casual scrutiny by a court of law. 
> Since Bill is
> an attorney, we have that angle covered.
> 
> Most recently, we have been working on a detailed description of the
> oversight responsibilities of the Secretariat in seeing the 
> process through,
> but have not involved the list in the minutae because not only is it a
> flexible system (you can use the parts you need and leave aside other
> options), but also, there will be plenty of time later for 
> public comment,
> and further revisions can be made after that, as and when necessary.
> 
> Ultimately, BP may not be the *only* valid consensus 
> procedure used by the
> ICANN community, but it certainly will be *one*, and the 
> first of its kind
> to produce a map of the route one actually needs to travel 
> from point A to
> point Z.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Joanna
> 
> The URLs for Best Practices: DNSO Citation:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
> (Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
> Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA")
> Part I: 
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
> Part II: 
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
> (Access to the .pdf file requires installing the Adobe Acrobat
> Reader, which is available for free down load at
> http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
> 
> 
> 
>  
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
> >> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 11:51 PM
> >> To: ga@dnso.org
> >> Cc: cgomes@verisign.com
> >> Subject: Consensus development process
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Chuck Gomes writes that "no valid consensus development
> >> process has ever been
> >> put into place."  I find this comment somewhat troubling at a
> >> time when the 
> >> Names Council has established a Task Force charged with
> >> arriving at a binding
> >> consensus policy regarding the issue of transfers.
> >> 
> >> The last thing that any registrant wants is to have a
> >> disgruntled set of
> >> registrars challenge a consensus determination on this matter
> >> and further 
> >> delay efforts at resolution of an ongoing problem.  If Chuck
> >> has legitimate 
> >> concerns regarding the consensus development process, now
> >> would be the time
> >> to air those specific concerns so that we can move forward
> >> properly and 
> >> finally put this issue behind us.
> >> 
> >> 
> > --
> > 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
> > 
> 
--
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