[wg-c] Agreement on method for consensus determination

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

Until such time as the Secretariat adds me to wg-c-1 and wg-c-2, I'll have
to post this here.

I'd like to state that Mr. Connolly's proposal for a consensus mechanism
sounds workable, with perhaps a few tweaks.

First, perhaps we could change item 1 so that it eliminates the ability
of either chair to claim consensus.  It would seem that in order for
consensus to exist, the chairs would have to recognize it jointly.
Also, with the pDNC appointing a chair, I'd prefer this in order
to eliminate possible capture issues.

Second, could the count of "five members of the WG" be changed to a 
percentage, along with the "three members" in item 3?

Third, from where did the Reporter come?  Not that I object to one.
But are we deciding to elect/appoint one?  This should be done
concurrently/immediately following the election of co-chair.

Finally, who runs the voting mechanism/votebot?  I would very much
prefer that this be a neutral party.

I'm voicing these concerns (1) because other members of the WG who
are not part of group 1 may not have read Mr. Connolly's ideas, and
(2) because once this mechanism is established, there's a strong
possibility it will be adopted by the other WGs.  Therefore, I'd prefer
we get it right the first time.

This is a very positive step in the right direction, and if we can get
this out of the way, we can get on with our tasks.

-- 
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