On consensus call (was: Consensus Call Tranche 1)

[Vint Cerf]

Andrew,

I'm looking for a sense of the working group and since it isn't  
possible to look for a hummm this poll is the best tool available.

at some point we have to establish rough consensus which may mean  
there are still some objections. consensus does not mean there are no  
objections although that would be a preferred outcome of course.

vint


NOTE NEW BUSINESS ADDRESS AND PHONE
Vint Cerf
Google
1818 Library Street, Suite 400
Reston, VA 20190
202-370-5637
vint at google.com




On Oct 7, 2008, at 4:58 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> 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/
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20081008/b4f98bf4/attachment.htm