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

["YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>]

> Is there an after the January 15th?

As I pointed out earlier, this group has 7 names council members,
2 board members who have been listening to you.

As we witnessed the eagerness of this group to have substantial
working days, that request has no reason to be rejected by NC.

Thanks,
YJ

> 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