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

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

Agreed, with the addition that a minority opinion accompany the proposals.
Chris McElroy aka NameCritic


----- Original Message -----
From: "J J Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
To: "Jefsey Morfin" <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>
Cc: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 3:00 AM
Subject: RE: [wg-review] The Number 2 Problem (solution)


> 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
>

--
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