Re: Consensus Development

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

Wallace,

  Please read below your comments.

Wallace Koehler wrote:
> 
> I hear a great clamor for recognition/development/whatever/ toward consensus
> on a variety of issues.  I think it is time for those skilled in conflict
> resolution to come forward.

  Many of us have I believe.  But do to the particular "Turf battles"
it seems that those voices go relitivle unheard.
> 
> 1. Like everything else, developing or building consensus means many things.
> Usually, "taking a vote" as some suggest tends to polarize rather than lead
> to consensus.

  I cannot dissagree with you more on this point.  A vote, is one of the
most wonderful means of determining a consensus that man has ever
devised.
It is used to determine our political process and relfect the will of
the
people, isn't that a consensus?   I would answer YES!  There have been
several attempts to suggest that their is a consensus on some points
reguarding this draft, when there was not (By my voting posting) and
that
is a clear indicator that there is only a consensus for those supporting
 one side without everyone actualy agreeing or disagreeing.  THAT IS NOT
a consensus.

> 
> 2. This listserv might have done that, but like most public fora, too many
> of us have insisted on remaining on our individual soap-boxes. That
> generally means little movement toward "consenus."

  I believe that we must be clear, concise, and resolute in what is
to become the final draft if this process is to be sucessful for the
long term.  Anything else will mearly be an exercise in political
wrangling for some time to come.
> 
> 3. I understand the need to protect sacred icons, to protect one's position.
> My vested interest in this particular process is limited. I don't
> own/operate/license any ISP, company with a trademark, etc. I am concerned
> with standards. (I want standards. I don't care what they are, so long as
> they are applied and accepted uniformly. I am interested in the structure of
> domain names as a search/retrieval mechanism -- thus I'd like a 2ld of md to
> mean marc deposee or medical doc or maryland, but not all three).

  Well you just argued yourself in a circle here.  I DO care what the
standards are.  Otherwise, you hve a standard that cannot withstand
the wrath of time.  That is not a standard.  You say, on the other hand
that "I am interested in the structure of domain names as a
search/retrieval
mechanism -- thus I'd like a 2ld of md to mean marc deposee or medical
doc 
or maryland, but not all three)".  How than can you say that you don't 
care what the standards are.  Argument in a circle.  Invalid.
> 
> 4. Would the "Camp David" process work here. Let us identify (if we really
> need to) each of the vested camps responding to this listserv. Let us carry
> from one group to another a list of proposals. Let us then first settle on
> what everyone can agree to and put those issues aside (consensus gained).
> Let us then "reason together" by taking each part, piece by piece, and
> seeing how we can modify to come to agreement. The "thread structure" now in
> place can be so employed.

  Good idea here.  This may work.  BUt it requires desire, will and 
a resolute attitude.
> 
> 5. Let us stop flaming. If you're flamed, ignore it. A flame p.o.'s me as
> much as anyone. If you gotta slap back, do it off the listserv.

  I agree.
> 
> 6. For once, I think it will matter in 100 years what the outcome of this
> process is. These are interesting times -- revolutionary times. Think to the
> future. Please.

  I think it could last a long time myself if done properly.
> 
> Wallace Koehler
> willing@usit.net
> *****************************************************
> Statistics are always true unless you personally know
> who made them up --Deepak Chopra*********************

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