Re: understanding consensus

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Vince,

  You make a good point here.  I wonder if this is how we got a 
60 day waiting period in the draft, along with several other
points that are not developed well in the draft.  I think all
will be able to surmise that from the Final Draft that is
put forth however. 

  I for one am still optomistic.  BUt I shall reserve my own
judgment for the final draft.  

  One indicator hwoever is that a perposal for adjustment
from members on this list has not been suggested, which I find 
curious.  It has been suggested however, none the less.

Regards,


Vince Wolodkin wrote:
> 
> 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

-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. 
Phone :972-447-1878
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com