[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] The message to the community (was Re: Cancellation of RDS PDP WG meetings at ICANN62)

[Andrew Sullivan]

I am perfectly content for the leadership to express their individual 
opinions that we failed.

But indeed, in _my_ opinion, if we are incapable of admitting we failed 
here, then the GNSO process is far too broken to be useful. If we cannot 
admit our failure, no victory will ever be possible except by accident.

Best regards,

A

--
Please excuse my clumbsy thums
----------
On May 13, 2018 22:06:48 Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br> wrote:

>> On 13 May 2018, at 21:54, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 01:00:29AM -0300, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>>>
>>> Even saying so would require a consensus of the WG.
>>
>> Nonsense.  The leadership can say whatever they want "in their
>> judgement" about the WG.
>
> That still doesn't constitute a WG position. It's basically their 
> individual positions.
>
>
>>  If that's not true, I don't understand what
>> the meaning of the term "the leadership" is.
>
> In GNSO practices, shepherding instead of ruling.
>
>>
>> Still, I would like to propose something more radical: that the WG
>> actually does produce such a rough consensus.
>
> In GNSO lingo, consensus is what would be called rough consensus in IETF.
>
>
> Rubens
>
>>
>> A
>>
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg