Re: understanding consensus

[Vince Wolodkin <wolodkin@digitalink.com>]

Christopher Ambler wrote:
> 
> >I don't think it is reasonable to demand or expect that all communications
> >to the IAHC members be posted to the list.  Certainly any message posted to
> >the list should be publically available, but do you expect every IAHC
> >member to transcribe their phone calls, retype faxes in, or post private
> >email which many have been sent in confidence?
> 
> No, I don't suppose it is at that. But so much for a public process,
> then. Perhaps if the IAHC creates an interim draft, taking into
> account all comments to date, it would mitigate the circumstances.
> 
> --
> Christopher Ambler
> President, Image Online Design, Inc.

Actually, I would expect all of these things from a committe charged
with, for lack of a better word "regulating" the namespace.  If you want
to withstand legal challenges, you absolutely need to record all private
correspondences, phone calls and other communications regarding the
matter.  As decisionmakers, this WILL become your duty.

ALL communications to IAHC decisionmakers regarding the outcome of the
proposal should definitely be a matter of public record.  I know this
places a burden on IAHC members, but it is the only way to go about
this.  I have said this a number of times over the last 6 months(though
initially about IANA), and I still feel this to be appropriate.

Otherwise, it is an open process in name only.  For example, let's say I
privately convince 5 members of the IAHC on a specific point.  Let's
also say(just for a hypothetical, cause this would never really happen)
that my premise is completely wrong, but I convince them none the less. 
They now convince others on IAHC that this is a good idea.  Without
access to my initial premise and arguments, members of the community
will be unable to debunk my logic.  Is this how we got a 60 day waiting
period????;-)

Vince Wolodkin
Vince Wolodkin