Consensus Call Tranche 1 (Document Organization)

[Vint Cerf]

Martin, usually if one votes yes it is because one is in agreement with the proposal so no action is needed.  But if one votes against the proposal then some revision may be needed to achieve consensus. This strikes me as an understandable asymmetry but perhaps you and others differ. I would never reject a positive expression of rationale but with or without it, consensus can be established while negative votes express lack of consensus. V 

----- Original Message -----
From: Martin Duerst <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: Vint Cerf
Cc: idna-update at alvestrand.no <idna-update at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Mon Oct 13 02:25:15 2008
Subject: Re: Consensus Call Tranche 1 (Document Organization)

Hello Vint,

At 20:14 08/10/10, Vint Cerf wrote:
>Martin,
>
>thanks for these comments. 
>
>with regard to the effort to assess consensus, if a lone voice spoke against and there was silence otherwise, I would think we'd reasonably conclude that we could move forward on the assumption that those silent were in agreement. The reason I think one needs to take that view is that otherwise a single dissenter could prevent any forward progress. By the same token, if many speak in favor and few against, it might be reasonable to take this as indication of rough consensus. One problem with working via mailing lists is that the expressions are often somewhat lopsided insofar as those who disagree are more likely to express themselves than those in agreement. Hence an effort to encourage both views to be expressed and also to assume that no response is an indication of agreement. 

Your explanations above make a lot of sense, and are very much in line
with my understanding of IETF process, much more so that the text that
went out with the original consensus calls.

If I can express one more little gripe, it would be that "If NO is the
response, a reason for that position needs to be stated." is also a bit
loopsided. It would be good if people on both sides would express the
reasons for their positions.

Regards,    Martin.




>For a practical case, the first tranche proposing to adopt the rationale document as it was presented, does not appear to have rough consensus  (at the end of this day, we will have "final" data for this round of expression).  
>
>vint
>
>
>
>NOTE NEW BUSINESS ADDRESS AND PHONE
>Vint Cerf
>Google
>1818 Library Street, Suite 400
>Reston, VA 20190
>202-370-5637
><mailto:vint at google.com>vint at google.com
>
>
>
>
>On Oct 10, 2008, at 4:01 AM, Martin Duerst wrote:
>
>>At 05:54 08/10/07, Vint Cerf wrote:
>>>DUE DATE: October 10, 2008 (ET)
>>>
>>>Place your reply here:
>>
>>NO.


>>- I'm not exactly happy with the way this "consenus call" is
>>  carried out. While I don't think there is something "deeply"
>>  flawed, I don't think that "in the absence of a consensus against
>>  each proposal, it will be assumed that the proposal is acceptable
>>  to the Working Group." agrees with IETF practice. IETF practice
>>  uses rough consensus to move forward, it doesn't redefine
>>  no consensus as consensus for whatever is currently around.
>>
>>
>>Regards,   Martin.
>>
>>
>>>COMMENTS:
>>>
>>>
>>>Procedure:
>>>
>>>
>>>There are several decisions that the working group will need to make to confirm consensus.  I will send a series of proposals over the next two weeks requesting YES or NO positions on each within a 4 day window. If NO 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.


#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp