Re: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem

["Chris McElroy" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

IETF    The Internet Engineering Task Force
http://www.ietf.org/


IMHO = In My Humble Opinion

UDRP = What Large Corporations and SWIPO use to steal Domain Names that
don't belong to them, IMHO.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cindy Merry" <tomerrys@inter-linc.net>
To: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 2:17 PM
Subject: RE: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem


> What is IETF, UDRP, and IMHO?
>
> Thanks, Cindy Merry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On Behalf
> Of Roeland Meyer
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 9:53 AM
> To: 'Milton Mueller'; wg-review@dnso.org; kent@songbird.com;
> eric@springbreaktravel.com
> Subject: RE: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem
>
> Make that three. The "consensus" is what led to UDRP recommendations from
> WG-A. No one can ever point to records that proved that WG-A was, in
> reality, in favor of UDRP as written. There is no accountability, no
> record,
> in short... no decision. Only, an arbitrary declaration from the titular
> leadership. Many of us disagreed. But, DNSO waved the "magic wand" of
> consensus. It is problematic that, no one can ever point to this
> "consensus"
> though.
>
> That was only ONE example. To look at it another way, think about when
> activity involves hundreds of thousands of members, let alone millions.
> Consensus model is not scalable to those numbers. Legally, it is also not
> defensible, in such an environment.
>
> ICANN/DNSO needs to make decisions that are incontrivertable. The
consensus
> model will not give us that either. One result, as we have seen in the
> past,
> is the constant re-hashing of older decisions, preventing us from moving
> forward to new issues and decisions. Simply, it will prevent us from
> getting
> out of our own shadow.
>
> There are some whom would hold up the holy spectre of the IETF. I submit
> that IETF effectiveness has been dropping off, as of late. IETF is also a
> technical body, with clear-cut technical issues before it (or should be).
> Like it or not, this is a political group, period. The issues are not
> nearly
> as clear-cut/definable as those that the IETF has to deal with. Those who
> think otherwise are nieve, IMHO. Those who espouse [and don't believe]
> otherwise are disingenuous. Because of this, there is much more contention
> among issues where both sides are right, for various definitions of
> "right".
> Negotiated positions need to be documented sufficiently that we can
> successfully resist going back over them, time and again.
>
> In short, we need a record that we can point at, that shows how the
> decision
> was reached, what the entry-criteria was, what the exit-criteria was, what
> relevent points were taken into account, as well as the MEASURABLE
results.
> Otherwise, the decision is ... NOT a decision and deserves to be
re-hashed.
>
> --
> ROELAND M.J. MEYER
> Managing Director
> Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
> TEL: +001 925 373 3954
> FAX: +001 925 373 9781
> http://www.mhsc.com
> mailto: rmeyer@mhsc.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu]
> > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 8:12 AM
> > To: wg-review@dnso.org; kent@songbird.com; eric@springbreaktravel.com
> > Subject: RE: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem
> >
> >
> >
> > No, we don't "have to" work with it. And the problem,  is
> > that no one seems to know what it (consensus) means anyway. I
> > agree with Karl. Well-stated rules, clear-cut votes on
> > clearly stated issues. That's the way to proceed.
> >
> > >>> "Eric" <eric@springbreaktravel.com> 01/05/01 10:58AM >>>
> >
> > Regardless of how any of us feel about consensus, it is the
> > structure that that we have to work with for this WG.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html