[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-d] Robert's Rules
On Mon, Aug 09, 1999 at 08:46:04AM -0700, Mark C. Langston said, in
yet another ankle-biting antagonistic missive:
>
> On 9 August 1999, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> wrote:
> >
> >I would like to point out that I don't make these statements in a
> >vacuum, nor through fuzzy newage (rhymes with sewage) attachement to
> >"rough consensus". Contrary to your assumption, the decision
> >processes of the DNSO were debated at *great* length during the DNSO
> >formation process, including voting schemes. You chose to sit out
> >that debate, and now we are simply repeating it.
>
> Kent, I have an honest question to ask of you: This is the second
> WG I've been in that included you in a member, and this is the second
> time, on two completely unrelated WGs, you've used this "already-trodden
> path" argument to wave away someone's ideas.
>
> Why, if all of these things have already been discussed in such great
> detail, are there WGs formed around them? And why do you insist on
> participating if the discussions have already been held and the
> decisions already made?
Recall that Karl said that those who favored "rough consensus" were
"fuzzy" thinkers, enamored of "new-age" ideas. I am responding to
such rhetoric -- the interest in "rough consensus" is based on a
large body of discussion by serious people, not "newage fuzzy
thinking".
In general, it's important to realize that there is a *great* deal of
"legislative history" in these debates. There have been very
detailed proposals for all these matters, but when the ICANN board
put in the provisions for the DNSO in the bylaws, most of that detail
was thrown away.
Some people seem to think we can simply ignore that legislative
history, and even more, simply ignore the bylaws, as in the proposals
that the NC should be a simple rubber-stamp for an all-powerful GA.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain