RE: [wg-review] The Number 2 Problem (solution)

[J J Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 10:08 6/01/01 +0100, you wrote:
> From this may we support a second proposition by this WG-Review:
>
>"
>The WG-Review has observed that reaching a consensus within the DNSO was 
>basically hampered by the lack of definition and therefore of comon 
>understanding of what a DNSO consensus is and how it is determined.
>"
 
That states the problem.

The solution is that this WG copies the way the NC determines consensus for
its recommendations to the Board: raw voting power of 2/3 of the individual
opinions present on this list determine WG consensus .

I will put this proposed solution up for a Yes or No, so that we can go forward.
We need an agreed definition.

I have my own interpretation of the remarkable double standard that the
introduction of the "consensus decisionmaking" in ICANN and the DNSO has
produced.  
Greg hit the nail on the head, IMHO. 

Joop Teernstra, LL.M.
the Cyberspace Association
the Individual Domain Name Owners'constituency
www.idno.org


--
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