Re: Merge draft

Amadeu Abril i Abril (Amadeu@nominalia.com)
Wed, 20 Jan 1999 04:41:22 +0100


Antony Van Couvering wrote:
>
> It seems we have a problem with how the drafting is proceeding. The dispute
> concerns two main points:

I think that the problem concerns a very limited number of people, btw.
>
> 1. What is the "merged" draft in relation to DNSO.ORG?
> 2. What is to be done with objections? From DNSO members? From other
> groups?
>
> As to Point One:
>
> >From what I understand, the DNSO.ORG group in Washington this week proposed
> to put forward the "merged" draft as a sort of 'work-in-progress.' It will
> be presented not as the point of view of DNSO.ORG, but rather as a sort of
> extracurricular activity that we did in order to try to find areas of
> agreement with other groups that have not heretofore joined the DNSO.ORG
> effort. It is *not* to be presented as the consensus of the DNSO.ORG.

Yes, this is consistent with what I understand was the intent of such draft,
and with all what the transition team has beensaying about it.
>
> As to Point Two:
>
> I believe it is fair for participants in the DNSO.ORG meetings in Barcelona
> and Monterrey to agree to be bound by the consensus points reached there.
> At least, for these purposes, they should not renew objections that were
> already voiced at the meetings, where consensus was achieved.

Again, this is also my understanding. Except that I am a little bit uneasy
with the concept of "being bound" by consensus. Nobody can preent anyone from
changing his/her mind, I am afraid. We "hope" waht you say to happen, btw.
>
> The point is that the "merged" draft does not represent the consensus
> position of the DNSO.ORG group. That should be made clear. If it is, then
> many of the problems will go away.

Hopefully....

Amadeu