[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ICANN-EU] Installing the New Charter.
In article <5.0.0.25.0.20001010095312.00ad29b0@pop.wanadoo.fr>, Jefsey
Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr> writes
>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:
>
>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
I've just started reading up the mails that where posted in the last two
weeks (or so), hadn't the time to do it earlier.
I don't know how much time other people on the list have, but I could
imagine that a Request for Consensus wouldn't be second by a portion of
the list only because members hadn't have the time to read it.
You also should have a way for people to vote "Not against".
regards Henk
>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).
>
>- 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.
>
>- 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.
>
>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.
>
>Would this be acceptable to you?
>Jefsey
>
>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
>
-------------------------------------------------------
Henk ter Heide
hheide@wirehub.nl
http://www.wirehub.nl/~hheide
Korte grappige verhaaltjes
Serieuze verhalen