[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ICANN-EU] Installing the New Charter.
Jefsey and all,
Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> Jeff, Patrick,
>
> May be can we settle that point:
>
> - Thomas proposes a charter
> - Jeff says that the consensus determination must be spelled out
> - I proposed a response that Jeff has commented
> - Patrick objected to my response in one case.
>
> The consensus to be better worded would be like this:
You mean "Could" be worded like this don't you?
>
>
> Consensus determination
>
> - consensus is reached when a Request for Consensus mailed by
> its author after having informed the Chair did not receive objection
> and has been seconded by half the ML or has been proposed to
> the list x times within a period of y days. The author must keep
> track and publish the received responses which should be private.
> (The Chair to decide about the x,y).
With this definition you have no way of confirming whether a Consensus
exist on a particular point or not using this definition. Also *Just* continuing
to "Propose" something (Resolution or whatever) a number of times in no
logical way can determine a that that Something has Consensus....
>
>
> - a rough consensus is reached if it did receive objections
> but no veto and has been seconded by half the ML or has
> been proposed to the list x times within a period of y days.
Again, *Just* continuing to "Propose" something (Resolution or whatever)
a number of times in no logical way can determine a that that Something has "Rough Consensus
either". Further, there is no deciding factor that would determine
what would or should constitute a *Veto* in your definition here. Hence,
this is both an incomplete possible definition and an invalid one as well for
the first reason I stated here.
>
>
> - a veto must be documented and accepted by the Chair.
> The Chair may be challenged. Then a Jury of three experienced
> ML Members permanently designed by the Chair upon
> ML nominations. If one of the Jury accepts the veto it is
> accepted.
Again, no definition for what constitutes a *Veto*... So again, not
valid.
>
>
> Use of the Consensus
>
> The consensus process is fully used when on has to decide about
> something concerning the ML: charter, Jury, letter to an external
> body/ML, internal rules, @large management,etc...
> The position about Vetoes is not offered unless requested by the
> European Director when the Request for Consensus aims at
> advising the European Director.
No, the director cannot be the only person to determine if a Veto is
in effect.
>
>
> Would this be acceptable to you?
> Jefsey
No, there is much work in your definitions to be done yet. (See above)..
>
>
> At 11:06 10/10/00, you wrote:
> >Jefsey and all,
> >
> >Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> >
> > > Jeff asks for a formal definition of consensus.
> >
> > No I ask for a definition of "Rough Consensus". I also ask
> >for a determination as to how "Rough Consensus" is reached or
> >decided/determined. What method, in other words?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > As this question has been discussed, could we formalize it this way:
> > >
> > > - consensus is when there is no objection. Ex. BC/DNSO broadcasts
> > > a document calling for comments withing 10 days otherwise the
> > > document is adopted.
> >
> > Hummm? Not a good method.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > - rough consensus is when there are objections, but no veto. When
> > > there is a rough consensus it is possible to keep working toward a
> > > consensus.
> >
> > Ok good. But how it "Rough Consensus" determined? What method?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > The problem is to decide about what is a veto, ie the seriousness
> > > of an objection. I would propose a Jury to be attached to the ML:
> > > their role would be to accept the seriousness of an objection not
> > > to judge it. Only one acknowledgement by one from the Jury would
> > > be enough. The Jury is part of the quality/interest of the ML and the
> > > Members should be chosen by the owner, the owner could be part
> > > of them.
> >
> > Shouldn't this "Jury" you suggest be determined by the list members?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jefsey
> > >
> > > At 07:23 10/10/00, you wrote:
> > > >Thomas and all,
> > > >
> > > > For the purposes of this mailing list charter for the EU, what is the
> > > >definition of "Rough Consensus"? How or is it measured? What
> > > >method is used to determine "Rough Consensus"?
> > > >
> > > >Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'd suggest that we should install the new charter as soon as
> > > > > possible. The last draft is available from this address:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > ftp://fitug.fitug.de/pub/icann-drafts/draft-roessler-icann-europe-charter-20000911.txt
> > > > >
> > > > > If you have any objections, please raise them now.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
> > > >
> > > >Regards,
> > > >
> > > >--
> > > >Jeffrey A. Williams
> > > >Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
> > > >CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > > >Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > > >E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > > >Contact Number: 972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
> > > >Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> >
> >Regards,
> >--
> >Jeffrey A. Williams
> >Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
> >CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> >Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> >E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> >Contact Number: 972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
> >Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208