Subject: RE: DNSEXT WGLC: To OPT_IN or not to OPT-IN

From: [email-masked] (David C Lawrence)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:16:25 -0500

Hallam-Baker, Phillip writes:
> I believe there has been consensus on the need for opt-in for
> over a year.

This belief is rooted in what?  By what metric have you determined
majority support for Opt-In with the ongoing arguments against it
here?

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:54:44 +0000

> > I believe there has been consensus on the need for opt-in for over a year.
> 

"majority support" != "consensus".  let's move on.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:49:22 -0800

> majority support for Opt-In with the ongoing arguments against it

let's not go down this rat-hole, as it is not phil's to decide/declare

randy

---

From: Brian Wellington <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:03:39 -0800 (PST)

> "majority support" != "consensus".  let's move on.

(definition 1, "Consensus" from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary 
(1913)) 
 Consensus \Con*sen"sus\, n. [L. See {Consent}.]
    Agreement; accord; consent.

(definition 2, "consensus" from WordNet (r) 1.7)
 consensus
      n : agreement of the majority in sentiment or belief [syn: {general
          agreement}]

I'm not sure what definition of consensus you're using.

Brian

---

From: [email-masked] (David C Lawrence)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:46:14 -0500

> "majority support" != "consensus".  let's move on.

Please forgive me if it is "support" you took exception with, when
"majority" was meant to be my focus.  Sorry for the sloppy language.

The concept of majority does indeed occur in definitions of consensus,
such as at m-w.com and the WordNet definition sent here.  Even the Tao
of the IETF says the following:

  The general rule on disputed topics is that the Working Group has to
  come to "rough consensus," meaning that a very large majority of those
  who care must agree.

What I see here is that many of the people who care do NOT agree, and
assertions to the contrary -- especially ones stating the belief that
consensus was achieved a year ago -- should be substantiated.

I'm unprepared to just "move on" at this point, particularly as I too
am one of the people opposed to OPT-IN (on grounds that have all been
presented by others here).

---

From: [email-masked] (David C Lawrence)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:50:59 -0500

> let's not go down this rat-hole, as it is not phil's to decide/declare

Point taken.  I'll be quiet about it now.  (Messages came a little out
of order.)