Re: [wg-d] Robert's Rules

["Bret A. Fausett" <baf@fausett.com>]

>The important point is that the *process* of the WG remains a 
>consensus process, though the result may not represent a consensus.

Kent -- Thanks for the clarification. I understand the point much better.

I have one concern about including alternatives in WG drafts though, 
which is that the ability to provide some upstream decision maker (NC or 
ICANN) with check the box alternatives reduces the incentive of those in 
the WGs to make compromises. If the only way to move something forward is 
to work with those holding different views, we might see more of a push 
for true consensus (or at least acceptable compromise). (Though I 
recognize that such a requirement poses problems of its own, which I 
alluded to in my last post in this thread.)

       -- Bret