Re: [wg-d] Overview

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

> But the report contemplates that the WG will move
> the issues forward through simple-majority voting, and doesn't include any
> mechanisms for determining whether the WG has achieved the sort of
> consensus that would likely satisfy the NC.

In our earliest discussions, most group members speaking out expressed a
preference for defined processes and votes, when necessary. Those who
favored voting mechanisms can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the
reasons were that outcomes of votes were determined by objective means and
that voting created a better record than "consensus."

It does make some sense.

Right now the working groups are pretty big, especially yours Jonathan.
Finding consensus in such a working group might have meaning. But working
groups might vary considerably in size. Finding consensus in a group of 10
people would be pretty meaningless. Consensus has to measured by looking
at the entire community.

One of the holes we need to fill is what happens, if anything, between the
public comment stages and submission of a report to the Names Council.
Presumably, public statements of support or criticism will assist in
determining whether consensus has formed around the report's
recommendations. The Names Council is tasked with determining whether
consensus exists, but there is nothing wrong with asking the WG to make
its own determination. Would there be any utility in that? What would it
be?

       -- Bret