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

["Siegfried Langenbach" <svl@nrw.net>]

On 12 Jul 99, at 20:30, Mark C. Langston wrote:

> 
> 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.
> 
Hallo,
are you trying to confuse non english-natives?

If somebody is not happy with an assumtion or a statement on the list he should 
speak up on exactly that matter, thats all.

Yes, that means if an idiot (I am not thinking of any of you !! ) makes an 
statement and nobody answers or rejects, it _could_ be treated as consensus.


I do not see a value in general discussions about theoretical possibilities.
Maybe creating another WG for discussing decision-making is what you wish?

siegfried