On consensus call (was: Consensus Call Tranche 1)

Andrew Sullivan ajs at commandprompt.com
Tue Oct 7 22:58:50 CEST 2008


Dear colleagues,

On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 04:54:52PM -0400, Vint Cerf wrote:
> is the response, a reason for that position needs to be stated. If there is 
> a clear consensus based on responses or in the absence ofa consensus 
> against each proposal, it will be assumed that the proposal is acceptable 
> to the Working Group.

As a matter of process, I want to note that I feel somewhat
uncomfortable with a procedure by which acceptance is presumed on the
basis of either silence or imperfect consensus for one option (which
is what the above seems to propose).  I recognize that the current one
is not a call for consensus on the documents as such; but given that
this is nevertheless an explicit consensus call, if someone later
raises an objection to any of these items during WGLC or even just
review, this declaration of consensus might be interpreted to have
ruled them out of order.

Notably, one of the open questions now is whether the current document
organization is right.  In the event the document set changes, one's
answers to some of the other questions might actually change (for what
was once apparently clear in one context might be revealed to be
confused in another).

So, for the record, while I think it is reasonable to get a sense of
which of these things are really outstanding or not, I don't think we
can close these topics for good, in the event new arguments turn up.
I'm sure it's not the Chair's intention to stifle discussion in the
event of new arguments, but I thought it wisest to make my view
explicit anyway.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at commandprompt.com
+1 503 667 4564 x104
http://www.commandprompt.com/


More information about the Idna-update mailing list