Re: [wg-review] [CONSENSUS] IS A LOADED TERM...

["Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <rod@cyberspaces.org>]

I think Greg's point that the poll results show a lack of a clear consensus
by this WG that the constituency structure of the DNSO should be abolished
is exactly correct.

Rod

> On the question of constituencies, however, results are not so clear cut.
>
> On the "Domain Name Definition" Poll, responses to the question at present
> appear to be
>
> Abolished = 17
> Retained = 3
> Don't Know = 3
> Other = 3
>
> Whereas, when asked in the constituency poll "Is a constituency structure
a
> functional method for subgrouping in the DNSO?" the answers are
>
> Yes = 14
> No = 11
> Don't Know = 7
>
> This indicates to me that the question needs a good bit more
consideration,
> while support for an IDNH has been consistent when measured several
> different ways.
>
> Lastly, impassioned calls for process when one isn't needed do NOTHING but
> disrupt the group. If you are calling for a vote on including Kent's
paper,
> the answer is "no", because that would be discriminatory and
inappropriate.
> If you are calling for a vote on whether or not this group will call
> something "consensus" without documentation, that's been done, too.
>
> So what are you looking for?
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> sidna@feedwriter.com
>


--
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