Re: [wg-review] 14. [BY CONSENSUS] decisions preparation by consensus, Report requested by Members

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

Is there an after the January 15th?

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic


----- Original Message -----
From: "YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>
To: <wg-review@dnso.org>; "Jefsey Morfin" <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 11:16 AM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] 14. [BY CONSENSUS] decisions preparation by
consensus, Report requested by Members


> > Greg's proposition concerning consensus study and practice widely
accepted
> > and discussed by this WG-Review, I propose a new subject as:
>
> It appears that this group keens on this issue.
>
> We can merge this issue with 5. [Working Groups] 7. [NC]
> 8. [WGs and NC] 3. [Constituencies] under one of assumptions
> that there will be constituencies in the dnso 4. [GA] etc.
>
> How WGs have achieved their consensus among members.
> How Constituencies have achieved their consensus among members
> How GA has achieved its consensus among members
> How NC has achieved its consensus among members.
>
> On the other hand, this can be one of fundamental questions we have
> to cast to DNSO/ICANN as independent issue.
>
> Let me suggest this.
> Let us focus on the initial sub-issues for progress report as of Jan 15.
> And then after Jan 15th, this can be added as another independent topic.
>
> Thanks,
> YJ
>
> > 14. [BY CONSENSUS] decision preparation by consensus, Report requested
by
> > Members
> >
> > As for the other subjects:
> >
> > 1. I propose to open the site http://byconsensus.org to maintain a
current
> > status of the pending questions and achievements
> > '
> > 2. I propose to start with the following general questions from Greg and
> > many other posts:
> >
> >      -  consensus vs voting
> >      -  group and technical consensus definitions
> >      -  guidelines towards a consensus
> >      -  consensus tools
> >      -  bad practices: a compendium of errors against consensus
> >
> > 3. I suggest that Greg Burton is proposed to use that frame to enter all
> > the points he has proposed or received in response,so we may have a good
> > basis for a Center of Interests work.
> >
> > 4. I repeat my motion which has now been seconded by several Members:
> >
> > "
> > The WG-Review has observed that reaching a consensus within the DNSO was
> > basically hampered by the lack of definition and therefore of common
> > understanding of what a DNSO consensus is and how it is determined
> > "
> >
> > The common target would to offer and maintain to the advantage of the
> whole
> > ICANN community a real experience and qualification about consensus
> > building and achievement. So it will practical serve te DNSO, the NC and
> > the ICANN.
> >
> > Jefsey
> >
> > --
> > 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