Re: [ICANN-EU] Installing the New Charter.

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>]

Good evening.
I agree with Thomas, also for the following considerations:

1) This list is not meant as a decision-making body (at least in this first 
phase0, and therefore if we have a debate on an issue there will be no 
absolute need to determine the exact extent of a consensus, the validity of 
a veto from a minority, or whatever.

2) Time is flying, the elections will be over in few hours, and I am 
seriously concerned about a drop in the attention. If we engage now in 
procedural discussions, and the building of a complex structure, people may 
not follow. I would rather start, establish a connection with the elected 
Director, and begin work. Then we will see.

Regards
Roberto



>From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
>To: Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>
>CC: icann-europe@fitug.de
>Subject: Re: [ICANN-EU] Installing the New Charter.
>Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:32:17 +0200
>
>On 2000-10-10 10:09:32 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > - 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).
>
>There is, currently, no Chair of the list.  Do you mean the
>Director?
>
> > -  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.
>
>You're adding a lot of overhead here which is, in my opinion, not
>needed.
>
> > 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.
>
> > Would this be acceptable to you?
>
>No.  I find this too complicated and formal.  I'd really prefer to
>leave the "rough consensus" in place, in particular since Jeff
>Williams seems to be the only individual on this list who objects.
>
>--
>Thomas Roessler                         <roessler@does-not-exist.org>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.