Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] how to reach consensus
- To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] how to reach consensus
- From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 11:43:20 +0200
The Board resolution and the resulting DAGv4 language is all about that:
whether we as a group can move beyond the impasse that we have always seen on
the Vi issue, where you basically have 2 camps facing off and no-one is willing
to move a little towards some middle ground, or whether we are not, dare I say,
mature enough to do so.
I think it would be not be good to see such tight separation stay in place for
the first round, but absent some willingness to accept the other side's point
of view, I agree with you it may well be the only solution we have left.
That is why the Board acted the way it did, because it realised there was no
way proponents of "no separation" or "full separation" would ever come together
to offer a rational middle-ground solution unless they were put in a position
where they had to reach consensus. If we are still not there, then let's stay
with the current impasse and we'll just all have to live with the DAGv4
language. I think that would be a pity because I can see a lot of cases where,
should strict separation be applied in that way, TLD initiatives that are
currently being worked on will simply not see the light of day.
Le 4 juin 2010 à 10:59, Avri Doria a écrit :
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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.