[gnso-vi-feb10] how to reach consensus

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

In terms of find consensus, I am wondering whether we can.  Despite my optimism 
yesterday about the value of locking us in a room until we reached consensus 
(did someone say throw away the key?) I have started to have concerns.

In looking at the proposals, they do seem to divide along one line:  

- those that look at pretty much getting back to the incumbent status quo that 
existed before DAGv3 and the Board 0-2% Co-owenership motion
- those that for various reasons think a change is needed to support innovation 
and other needs

I expect that those who want to go back to the incumbent conditions pre 
DAGv3/Board conditions are able to come to consensus and it seems they largely 
have.

And I expect that those who want various changes could probably also come to 
consensus.

But I am not sure I see how those wanting change and those wanting to return to 
the incumbent status quo will reach consensus.

Given this, I find the solution proposed by the staff in DAGv4, based on the 
Board's prescription might be the right solution for this first round, with 
perhaps some tightening for Registry/RSP ownership of Resellers, at least until 
we find some way to move beyond the no-change/change dichotomy.    If playing 
it safe is our guiding principle as some have indicated it should be, then 
perhaps DAGv4 is the safest way to go.

I think it might actually also be the safest in terms of possible harms and I 
propose that when we do our harms analysis, the DAGv4 implementation be 
included as one of the lines.  Might also be worth including it in Kathy's 
Table.

To be certain I still support CAM and am still willing to work for consensus 
with all those who are looking for change.  I am not, however, heartened by the 
current impasse.

a.