Re: [wg-c] Re: [wg-c-1] First question

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 12 July 1999, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> wrote:


>On Mon, Jul 12, 1999 at 08:46:03AM -0700, Mark C. Langston wrote:
>> On 12 July 1999, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >I think that, with a couple of exceptions, there is fairly strong
>> >consensus among those present on this list that new gTLDs are
>> >desirable.  
>> 
>> Kent, I politely and respectfully request that you, and anyone else
>> with the urge to do so (e.g., members of the pDNC) refrain from making
>> statements about consensus existing for an issue until there is some
>> tangible evidence to support such a claim.
>
>I politely and respectfully decline.  Statements and discussion 
>about whether consensus exists are part and parcel of what we do.

In that case, you made a blanket statement about consensus existing,
I obviously feel it does not.  I'm just asking that you refrain from
speaking for those who have not spoken.  I don't believe there's
been enough discussion on this list to begin to make claims about
consensus.  

I will point out that in your desire to "get on with it", every time
yyou claim the existence of consensus where none is demonstrable, I
will challenge you on it.  I'm all for getting some work done, but
I will not forsake fairness, openness, and accountability to achieve
it.


>
>> This would go a long
>> way towards establishing legitimacy, both personal and organizational.
>
>I'm flattered that you think my statements have such weight, but I am
>quite certain that your perception of them does not correspond to
>reality. 
>

Again, Kent - if you believe consensus on the issue exists, please
provide some substance for the claim.  But don't think that because
you perceive things a certain way that they are so.

>> >We can simply note that the exceptions exist, and why, 
>> >and leave it at that.  I suggest that in cases where a strong 
>> >difference of opinion that those with the different opinions be 
>> >charged with writing a "minority report" which can either be 
>> >incorporated in the body of the WG report, or attached as an 
>> >appendix. 
>> 
>> This sounds like a decent mechanism, but which opinion gets to
>> be the minority?
>>
>> We've yet to establish any method for determining
>> consensus.  We don't even have a current, pulically available, and
>> accurate count of the people subscribed to this list.  This would be
>> the very first step in deciding where consensus lay, if any, and 
>> finding the minority opinion, if one exists.
>
>Have you ever participated in an IETF working group?

No.  Is it a requirement for participation here?  I'll assume that
your response to this will be along the lines of, "Well, I have, and
here's how we do things there..." at which point I'll happily point
out that this is not the IETF.  Unless we adopted the IETF's policies
and procedures when I wasn't looking.

>
>> It also assumes that only one minority opinion will exist.  This
>> might not be a valid assumption.
>
>I didn't make that assumption.  There could be multiple minority 
>opinions, on several subtopics.
>
>In any case, these are nitpicky details.  


They are not nitpicky details, Kent.  I will argue this point with you
as long as it takes.  The openness, fairness, and accountability (and
ultimate legitimacy) of the decisions made in this group are
paramount.  Calling the mechanisms by which these are achieved
"nitpicky details" says volumes about your methods.

This group is about achieving consensus on an issue.  To simply
sit there and claim consensus exists with no evidence whatsoever
flies in the face of any results this group may produce.  That 
we may actually determine consensus does exist on this point
is irrelevant.  You cannot make the claim before we have some
method in place.  You do not achieve concensus by fiat.

>The general idea is that 
>if there are irreconcilable opinions we report it and move on.

Fine. To whomever is writing the report for this WG:  Please note
that there may be irreconcilable differences among members about
the legitimacy of the decisions made herein.

By the way, Kent...are you planning to disclose your interests 
for the group?

-- 
Mark C. Langston	     			Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org				     http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin					    http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA					     http://www.dnso.org