Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] how to reach consensus
- To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] how to reach consensus
- From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 09:33:55 -0400
On 6/4/10 5:43 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> 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.
Personally I prefer to look to the rationals offered by Kurt, Dan, and
JJ, at the January WDC Consultancy, and by Kurt, and presumably
others, earlier, in setting the SOW for the CRAI consultancy, over any
other interpretation of their acts.
They claimed risk of harm, not need for agreement.