Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #188
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Saturday, November 11 2000         Volume 01 : Number 188

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 21:16:55 -0800 (PST)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign Launches Multilingual .COM, .NET and .ORG today

bill,

there isn't any reason to advertise here; infact most of would appreciate
it if you wouldn't send this type of material.

- -rick

On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, J. William Semich wrote:

> "WorldNames Announces Low Price of $8.88 to Register New Chinese, Japanese,
> or Korean .COM, .NET and .ORG Domain Names"
> 
> http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/001110/ny_worldna.html
> 
> Multilingual domain names are in your future. <smile>
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bill Semich
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 22:49:04 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] the IDNO

Hello Joop,

Friday, November 10, 2000, 6:29:35 PM, you wrote:

> At 12:23 10/11/00 -0500, Ken Stubbs wrote:
>>joop...
>>
>>i would then assume by your comments below then that your would pofess that
>>IDNO speaks for all the individual domain name holders of the world
>>and the ICIIU speaks for the balance of the users.  !!
>>
>>NO SALE HERE !
>>

> Ken,

> Very happy that the Chair of the Names Council at last deigns to address
> the IDNO. 

> Speaking only about the IDNO, the short answer is yes.
> We are surely as representative as the other constituencies are for their
> typical interests.
> More representative, perhaps, than the "Biz constituency" is for "the
> World's businesses".
> Yes, we are set up as a geographically diverse structure. Yes, typical
> individual DN holders from around the world are members and are
> participating as officers.

Provided they agree with you and your agenda, otherwise they are
sabotaged, slandered, and circumvented until you get the result you
want.

> Please tell me, who else are there  to speak for typical Individual DN
> holder's interests?

The lack of another group does not make your group any more
representative.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:43:25 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter to the Board on the At-Large Study

I personally substantially agree with the viewpoints raised.
I do not know if it is possible to achieve them.

Two notes:

>4.  *The study should be conducted by open procedures. Meetings of the 
>group should be held with prior notice and be open to the public.*

Experience with a lot of groups suggests that the interplay of ideas is 
substantially harmed by the inability to raise an idea, have it found 
wanting, and dropping it, without having that idea used against you in the 
future.

I urge that the group be allowed to talk in private.

However, I also urge that any member of the group be allowed and encouraged 
to relate any opinion about the reasoning behind results from the group's 
deliberations in public.
If the group is representative of both ICANN supporters and critics, this 
should ensure that little can be hidden.

At 17:50 09/11/2000 -0500, Rob Courtney wrote:
>5.  *There should be open public access to all data and information about 
>the recent election.* One key task of the study is to assess the election 
>held last month for the first five At Large seats. The study should 
>evaluate what went right and what went wrong with the election, what 
>lessons can be learned, and what changes should be made for the future. In 
>doing this, to the extent consistent with maintaining the privacy of 
>voters, the study should review all data relevant to the election, 
>including computer records relating to the registration and verification 
>of memberships, and the process of voting itself.

I would stress that under no circumstances must the secrecy of the vote 
itself be compromised.
However, the study commission, or someone acting on their behalf, SHOULD 
have the ability to:

- - track down some sample persons who voted, and verify their identity
- - track down some sample persons who activated membership and did not
   vote, and ask why
- - track down some sample persons who registered but did not activate,
   and ask why

At the moment, prevailing theory is that the "lost" categories are partly
because of technical problems, and partly because people lost interest;
it would be interesting to verify this theory.

             Harald

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 10:09:55 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule)

At 07:46 10/11/2000 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>The fact of the matter is that the GA has not established any sort of
>defined process for concluding that consensus has been reached.

It has. That process is called voting - see 
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-working-procedures.html

The process chosen for voting takes some time to start, takes a week for 
the voting to run, and some work to do the tabulation afterwards. So we are 
looking at a delay of perhaps 2 weeks from the time a resolution is 
presented to the GA by the chair for action to the time the GA's consensus 
can be verified.

Anything but voting (including my declaration of "rough consensus) is 
really a personal judgment. I am coming to the conclusion that I should not 
have said anything on behalf of the GA, and let the seating resolution die 
the death of irrelevance.

              Harald

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 02:49:35 -0800
From: [email-masked] (PMIW,  Ken Stoen)
Subject: FW: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ken Stoen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 6:09 PM
To: Thomas Roessler; [email-masked]
Subject: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating
rule

Hi 
 Let us cut to the chase here.
Consider this a call to the list.

A: Is there a CONSENSUS on the following issue: 

1) The newly elected board members should take
   their seats before the general meeting, not after.

2) All non-elected members whose terms have been
   extended beyond their original time should immediately
   resign. 

Please reply with yes "I agree"  or "I don't agree"

Ken

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Thomas
>Roessler
>Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 7:05 AM
>To: William X. Walsh
>Cc: Gomes, Chuck; 'technizmo'; [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule
>
>
>On 2000-11-10 05:52:44 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
>> Participation is the responsibility of the participant.
>> Registering or not registering your vote is not our
>> responsibility.
>
>While this is true, it won't work on mailing lists in general.  If
>all you want to do is claim rough consensus, post a message with a
>clear and visible subject, like:
>
>	CONSENSUS?  <topic>
>
>and give people two or three days to indicate their possible
>objections.  Normally, you'll quite quickly see whether or not there
>are strong objections against claiming consensus.  This can also be
>documented.
>
>While, this way, you won't get strong documentation and clear
>legitimation like with formal votes, it'll be sufficient in
>situations where time is insufficient for a vote, and at least a
>rough result should be produced.
>
>-- 
>Thomas Roessler                         <[email-masked]>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 13:18:05 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: FW: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

I agree.

- -- 
Marc Schneiders (rest in header)

On Sat, 11 Nov 2000, at 02:49 [=GMT-0800], PMIW,  Ken Stoen wrote:

> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Stoen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 6:09 PM
> To: Thomas Roessler; [email-masked]
> Subject: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating
> rule
> 
> 
> Hi 
>  Let us cut to the chase here.
> Consider this a call to the list.
> 
> A: Is there a CONSENSUS on the following issue: 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) The newly elected board members should take
>    their seats before the general meeting, not after.
> 
> 
> 2) All non-elected members whose terms have been
>    extended beyond their original time should immediately
>    resign. 
> 
> 
> Please reply with yes "I agree"  or "I don't agree"
> 
> 
> Ken
> 
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Thomas
> >Roessler
> >Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 7:05 AM
> >To: William X. Walsh
> >Cc: Gomes, Chuck; 'technizmo'; [email-masked]
> >Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule
> >
> >
> >On 2000-11-10 05:52:44 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> >
> >> Participation is the responsibility of the participant.
> >> Registering or not registering your vote is not our
> >> responsibility.
> >
> >While this is true, it won't work on mailing lists in general.  If
> >all you want to do is claim rough consensus, post a message with a
> >clear and visible subject, like:
> >
> >	CONSENSUS?  <topic>
> >
> >and give people two or three days to indicate their possible
> >objections.  Normally, you'll quite quickly see whether or not there
> >are strong objections against claiming consensus.  This can also be
> >documented.
> >
> >While, this way, you won't get strong documentation and clear
> >legitimation like with formal votes, it'll be sufficient in
> >situations where time is insufficient for a vote, and at least a
> >rough result should be produced.
> >
> >-- 
> >Thomas Roessler                         <[email-masked]>
> >--
> >This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> >Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> >("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 08:52:59 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating  rule

No.

Chuck Gomes

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 5:50 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: FW: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change
seating rule

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ken Stoen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 6:09 PM
To: Thomas Roessler; [email-masked]
Subject: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating
rule

Hi 
 Let us cut to the chase here.
Consider this a call to the list.

A: Is there a CONSENSUS on the following issue: 

1) The newly elected board members should take
   their seats before the general meeting, not after.

2) All non-elected members whose terms have been
   extended beyond their original time should immediately
   resign. 

Please reply with yes "I agree"  or "I don't agree"

Ken

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Thomas
>Roessler
>Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 7:05 AM
>To: William X. Walsh
>Cc: Gomes, Chuck; 'technizmo'; [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule
>
>
>On 2000-11-10 05:52:44 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
>> Participation is the responsibility of the participant.
>> Registering or not registering your vote is not our
>> responsibility.
>
>While this is true, it won't work on mailing lists in general.  If
>all you want to do is claim rough consensus, post a message with a
>clear and visible subject, like:
>
>	CONSENSUS?  <topic>
>
>and give people two or three days to indicate their possible
>objections.  Normally, you'll quite quickly see whether or not there
>are strong objections against claiming consensus.  This can also be
>documented.
>
>While, this way, you won't get strong documentation and clear
>legitimation like with formal votes, it'll be sufficient in
>situations where time is insufficient for a vote, and at least a
>rough result should be produced.
>
>-- 
>Thomas Roessler                         <[email-masked]>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:15:30 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to c hange seating rule)

How many GA members knew that a consensus vote was going to be taken?  Has
it been made clear that consensus votes can be taken at any time and
therefore it is critical to participate on the list, otherwise your lack of
participation will be interpreted as agreement with the position under
discussion?  Was any effort made to validate the representativeness of the
vote taken with regard to the total GA?  What measured criteria are used to
establish consensus or rough consensus?  Are these criteria defined on the
fly or are they agreed to in advance and clearly communicated?

In my opinion, all of these questions and many others need to be answered if
a valid consensus process is to be established.  Moreover, this does not
just apply to the GA, I believe it applies to DNSO working groups,
constituencies, etc.

Now to your point about whether you should have called for the vote.  I
think that was fine.  As I stated earlier, I just don't believe that the
results of the vote should be interpreted to be a GA rough consensus
position.  On the other hand, to report that the active participants on the
GA list during a specified period of time reached a rough consensus on the
the two points.  Communicating that to the NC would be appropriate.

If I was an NC member or a board member, when I was presented with a
recommendation that is claimed to be a consensus position, I would expect to
see some measurable data to back that up.  Otherwise, I would not be
convinced that consensus was truly reached.  My personal opinion is that no
DNSO group has done a very good job in this regard so far.  And I think that
in the next year it will be critical to work on this, that is, to establish
clearly defined consensus building criteria.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 4:10 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'technizmo'; [email-masked]
Subject: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to
change seating rule)

At 07:46 10/11/2000 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>The fact of the matter is that the GA has not established any sort of
>defined process for concluding that consensus has been reached.

It has. That process is called voting - see 
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-working-procedures.html

The process chosen for voting takes some time to start, takes a week for 
the voting to run, and some work to do the tabulation afterwards. So we are 
looking at a delay of perhaps 2 weeks from the time a resolution is 
presented to the GA by the chair for action to the time the GA's consensus 
can be verified.

Anything but voting (including my declaration of "rough consensus) is 
really a personal judgment. I am coming to the conclusion that I should not 
have said anything on behalf of the GA, and let the seating resolution die 
the death of irrelevance.

              Harald

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:23:10 -0500
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

Yes, I agree

Leah Gallegos

> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Stoen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 6:09 PM
> To: Thomas Roessler; [email-masked]
> Subject: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating
> rule
> 
> 
> Hi 
>  Let us cut to the chase here.
> Consider this a call to the list.
> 
> A: Is there a CONSENSUS on the following issue: 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) The newly elected board members should take
>    their seats before the general meeting, not after.
> 
> 
> 2) All non-elected members whose terms have been
>    extended beyond their original time should immediately
>    resign. 
> 
> 
> Please reply with yes "I agree"  or "I don't agree"
> 
> 
> Ken
> 
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Thomas
> >Roessler Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 7:05 AM To: William X. Walsh
> >Cc: Gomes, Chuck; 'technizmo'; [email-masked] Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO
> >General Assembly call to change seating rule
> >
> >
> >On 2000-11-10 05:52:44 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> >
> >> Participation is the responsibility of the participant.
> >> Registering or not registering your vote is not our
> >> responsibility.
> >
> >While this is true, it won't work on mailing lists in general.  If
> >all you want to do is claim rough consensus, post a message with a
> >clear and visible subject, like:
> >
> >	CONSENSUS?  <topic>
> >
> >and give people two or three days to indicate their possible
> >objections.  Normally, you'll quite quickly see whether or not there
> >are strong objections against claiming consensus.  This can also be
> >documented.
> >
> >While, this way, you won't get strong documentation and clear
> >legitimation like with formal votes, it'll be sufficient in
> >situations where time is insufficient for a vote, and at least a
> >rough result should be produced.
> >
> >-- 
> >Thomas Roessler                         <[email-masked]>
> >-- This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list. Send mail
> >to [email-masked] to unsubscribe ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of
> >the message). Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:56:13 -0700
From: "Michael F. McNulty" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: FW: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating  rule

I agree.
Michael McNulty

"PMIW, Ken Stoen" wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Stoen [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 6:09 PM
> To: Thomas Roessler; [email-masked]
> Subject: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating
> rule
>
> Hi
>  Let us cut to the chase here.
> Consider this a call to the list.
>
> A: Is there a CONSENSUS on the following issue:
>
> 1) The newly elected board members should take
>    their seats before the general meeting, not after.
>
> 2) All non-elected members whose terms have been
>    extended beyond their original time should immediately
>    resign.
>
> Please reply with yes "I agree"  or "I don't agree"
>
> Ken
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Thomas
> >Roessler
> >Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 7:05 AM
> >To: William X. Walsh
> >Cc: Gomes, Chuck; 'technizmo'; [email-masked]
> >Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule
> >
> >
> >On 2000-11-10 05:52:44 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> >
> >> Participation is the responsibility of the participant.
> >> Registering or not registering your vote is not our
> >> responsibility.
> >
> >While this is true, it won't work on mailing lists in general.  If
> >all you want to do is claim rough consensus, post a message with a
> >clear and visible subject, like:
> >
> >       CONSENSUS?  <topic>
> >
> >and give people two or three days to indicate their possible
> >objections.  Normally, you'll quite quickly see whether or not there
> >are strong objections against claiming consensus.  This can also be
> >documented.
> >
> >While, this way, you won't get strong documentation and clear
> >legitimation like with formal votes, it'll be sufficient in
> >situations where time is insufficient for a vote, and at least a
> >rough result should be produced.
> >
> >--
> >Thomas Roessler                         <[email-masked]>
> >--
> >This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> >Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> >("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 10:00:29 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

- --part1_86.2be1014.273eb90d_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I agree,
Forrester D. Rupp

In a message dated 11/11/00 6:31:53 AM Pacific Standard Time, [email-masked] 
writes:

> Yes, I agree
> 
> Leah Gallegos
> 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ken Stoen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 6:09 PM
> > To: Thomas Roessler; [email-masked]
> > Subject: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating
> > rule
> > 
> > 
> > Hi 
> >  Let us cut to the chase here.
> > Consider this a call to the list.
> > 
> > A: Is there a CONSENSUS on the following issue: 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 1) The newly elected board members should take
> >    their seats before the general meeting, not after.
> > 
> > 
> > 2) All non-elected members whose terms have been
> >    extended beyond their original time should immediately
> >    resign. 
> > 
> > 
> > Please reply with yes "I agree"  or "I don't agree"
> > 
> > 
> > Ken
> > 
> > 
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Thomas
> > >Roessler Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 7:05 AM To: William X. Walsh
> > >Cc: Gomes, Chuck; 'technizmo'; [email-masked] Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO
> > >General Assembly call to change seating rule
> > >
> > >
> > >On 2000-11-10 05:52:44 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> > >
> > >> Participation is the responsibility of the participant.
> > >> Registering or not registering your vote is not our
> > >> responsibility.
> > >
> > >While this is true, it won't work on mailing lists in general.  If
> > >all you want to do is claim rough consensus, post a message with a
> > >clear and visible subject, like:
> > >
> > >    CONSENSUS?  <topic>
> > >
> > >and give people two or three days to indicate their possible
> > >objections.  Normally, you'll quite quickly see whether or not there
> > >are strong objections against claiming consensus.  This can also be
> > >documented.
> > >
> > >While, this way, you won't get strong documentation and clear
> > >legitimation like with formal votes, it'll be sufficient in
> > >situations where time is insufficient for a vote, and at least a
> > >rough result should be produced.
> > >
> > >-- 
> > >Thomas Roessler                         <[email-masked]>
> > >-- This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list. Send mail
> > >to [email-masked] to unsubscribe ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of
> > >the message). Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> > >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
> Return-Path: <[email-masked]>
> Received: from  rly-zd02.mx.aol.com (rly-zd02.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.226]) 
> by air-zd04.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.23) with ESMTP; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:31:52 
> -0500
> Received: from  dnso.dnso.org (dnso.dnso.org [192.134.4.239]) by 
> rly-zd02.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:31:25 -0500
> Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
>     by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) id PAA20571;
>     Sat, 11 Nov 2000 15:18:33 +0100 (MET)
> Received: from fred.cyac.net ([209.218.156.17])
>     by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA20567
>     for <[email-masked]>; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 15:18:31 +0100 (MET)
> Received: from Leah (vn-va-nn-175.cvinet.com [209.218.156.175])
>     by fred.cyac.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA13455;
>     Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:21:18 -0500
> From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked] (PMIW,  Ken Stoen)
> Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:23:10 -0500
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
> Subject: Re: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating 
> rule
> Reply-to: [email-masked]
> CC: [email-masked]
> Message-ID: <3A0D0FFE.24625.2462199@localhost>
> In-reply-to: <[email-masked]>
> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
> Sender: [email-masked]
> Precedence: bulk
> 
> 

- --part1_86.2be1014.273eb90d_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT  SIZE=2>I agree,
<BR>Forrester D. Rupp
<BR>
<BR>In a message dated 11/11/00 6:31:53 AM Pacific Standard Time, [email-masked] <BR>writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Yes, I agree
<BR>
<BR>Leah Gallegos
<BR>
<BR>&gt; 
<BR>&gt; 
<BR>&gt; -----Original Message-----
<BR>&gt; From: Ken Stoen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
<BR>&gt; Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 6:09 PM
<BR>&gt; To: Thomas Roessler; [email-masked]
<BR>&gt; Subject: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating
<BR>&gt; rule
<BR>&gt; 
<BR>&gt; 
<BR>&gt; Hi 
<BR>&gt; &nbsp;Let us cut to the chase here.
<BR>&gt; Consider this a call to the list.
<BR>&gt; 
<BR>&gt; A: Is there a CONSENSUS on the following issue: 
<BR>&gt; 
<BR>&gt; 
<BR>&gt; 
<BR>&gt; 1) The newly elected board members should take
<BR>&gt; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;their seats before the general meeting, not after.
<BR>&gt; 
<BR>&gt; 
<BR>&gt; 2) All non-elected members whose terms have been
<BR>&gt; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;extended beyond their original time should immediately
<BR>&gt; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;resign. 
<BR>&gt; 
<BR>&gt; 
<BR>&gt; Please reply with yes "I agree" &nbsp;or "I don't agree"
<BR>&gt; 
<BR>&gt; 
<BR>&gt; Ken
<BR>&gt; 
<BR>&gt; 
<BR>&gt; &gt;-----Original Message-----
<BR>&gt; &gt;From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Thomas
<BR>&gt; &gt;Roessler Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 7:05 AM To: William X. Walsh
<BR>&gt; &gt;Cc: Gomes, Chuck; 'technizmo'; [email-masked] Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO
<BR>&gt; &gt;General Assembly call to change seating rule
<BR>&gt; &gt;
<BR>&gt; &gt;
<BR>&gt; &gt;On 2000-11-10 05:52:44 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
<BR>&gt; &gt;
<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt; Participation is the responsibility of the participant.
<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt; Registering or not registering your vote is not our
<BR>&gt; &gt;&gt; responsibility.
<BR>&gt; &gt;
<BR>&gt; &gt;While this is true, it won't work on mailing lists in general. &nbsp;If
<BR>&gt; &gt;all you want to do is claim rough consensus, post a message with a
<BR>&gt; &gt;clear and visible subject, like:
<BR>&gt; &gt;
<BR>&gt; &gt; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;CONSENSUS? &nbsp;&lt;topic&gt;
<BR>&gt; &gt;
<BR>&gt; &gt;and give people two or three days to indicate their possible
<BR>&gt; &gt;objections. &nbsp;Normally, you'll quite quickly see whether or not there
<BR>&gt; &gt;are strong objections against claiming consensus. &nbsp;This can also be
<BR>&gt; &gt;documented.
<BR>&gt; &gt;
<BR>&gt; &gt;While, this way, you won't get strong documentation and clear
<BR>&gt; &gt;legitimation like with formal votes, it'll be sufficient in
<BR>&gt; &gt;situations where time is insufficient for a vote, and at least a
<BR>&gt; &gt;rough result should be produced.
<BR>&gt; &gt;
<BR>&gt; &gt;-- 
<BR>&gt; &gt;Thomas Roessler &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;[email-masked]&gt;
<BR>&gt; &gt;-- This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list. Send mail
<BR>&gt; &gt;to [email-masked] to unsubscribe ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of
<BR>&gt; &gt;the message). Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<BR>&gt; &gt;
<BR>&gt; &gt;
<BR>&gt; --
<BR>&gt; This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<BR>&gt; Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<BR>&gt; ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
<BR>&gt; Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>--
<BR>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
<BR>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
<BR>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
<BR>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<BR>
<BR></XMP></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#0f0f0f" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR>
<BR>----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
<BR>Return-Path: &lt;[email-masked]&gt;
<BR>Received: from &nbsp;rly-zd02.mx.aol.com (rly-zd02.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.226]) <BR>by air-zd04.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.23) with ESMTP; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:31:52 <BR>-0500
<BR>Received: from &nbsp;dnso.dnso.org (dnso.dnso.org [192.134.4.239]) by <BR>rly-zd02.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:31:25 -0500
<BR>Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) id PAA20571;
<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Sat, 11 Nov 2000 15:18:33 +0100 (MET)
<BR>Received: from fred.cyac.net ([209.218.156.17])
<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA20567
<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;for &lt;[email-masked]&gt;; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 15:18:31 +0100 (MET)
<BR>Received: from Leah (vn-va-nn-175.cvinet.com [209.218.156.175])
<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;by fred.cyac.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA13455;
<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:21:18 -0500
<BR>From: "JandL" &lt;[email-masked]&gt;
<BR>To: [email-masked] (PMIW, &nbsp;Ken Stoen)
<BR>Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:23:10 -0500
<BR>MIME-Version: 1.0
<BR>Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
<BR>Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
<BR>Subject: Re: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating <BR>rule
<BR>Reply-to: [email-masked]
<BR>CC: [email-masked]
<BR>Message-ID: &lt;3A0D0FFE.24625.2462199@localhost&gt;
<BR>In-reply-to: &lt;[email-masked]&gt;
<BR>X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
<BR>Sender: [email-masked]
<BR>Precedence: bulk
<BR>
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR></FONT></HTML>

- --part1_86.2be1014.273eb90d_boundary--
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #188
************************