Re: [ga] Consensus

["William S. Lovell" <cereba@oregonvos.net>]

L Gallegos wrote:

> On 25 Jun 2001, at 12:49, Steven Heath wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > L Gallegos [mailto:jandl@jandl.com] said:
> >
> > > Please point out the document defining consensus for the GA.  If a
> > > vote is not determined by a majority, what is the criteria?
> >
> > con·sen·sus (kn-snss) n.
> >
> > 1, An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole: "Among political
> > women... there is a clear consensus about the problems women candidates have
> > traditionally faced" (Wendy Kaminer).
> >
> > 2, General agreement or accord: government by consensus.
> >
> > While it is open to debate what the exact level is 'required' it is norm
> > (IMHO) that at least 2/3 support would be required for consensus.
>
> Okay, let's say the GA agreed on 2/3 (not necessarily my choice).

William X. Walsh says that he believes that to be the rule, but did
not cite any reference.

>
> 2/3 of what?  The entire voting membership?  Has that ever
> happened?  I don't think I've ever seen 2/3 participate in discussion,
> never mind a vote.  That would permanently paralyze the GA.

Best line of the day, from Jim Fleming:

"consensus appears to be....'apathetic consent'"

>
> 2/3 of the 30 or so who do participate?  This has happened
> already.  The few really loud ones squelsh those who disagree with
> them.  One could easily draw a line and the two camps would be
> obvious.  When does it reach consensus enough for a vote?

Those who run the vocal minority will assert that the "vote" of the
majority of the vocal minority should define "consensus," i.e. 12
people are discussing, 30 vote, and 20 vote in favor. Whatever
number were selected, 2/3 or whatever, GA votes can never define
a consensus if only 10% of registered voters vote, it being even worse
that our now astounding 322 registered voters is likely less than 10%
of the people who actually follow all this poobah

>
> > The word has not defined just as we do not define other words that are in
> > the dictionary.
> >
> > The proposed motion while having wide debate on the general issue of ICANN
> > .biz vs non ICANN .biz reach nothing like 'wide support' to censure ICANN on
> > .biz in the manner outlined.
>
> How do we know that?

We don't. It's hype.

> > Perhaps a motion worded differently would reach greater support, such as:
> >
> > That the DNSO formally issue a statement of concern against the ICANN
> > board for the process in the granting of the new gTLD's (including but not
> > limited to .biz) and that process of its inclusion in the USG root be
> > reviewed by a taskforce.
> >
>
> Hasn't that been done?  Is it the process or the decision?  or is it
> both?
>
> I believe John's "motion" was a statement of more than concern. It
> is being discussed on the ga-roots list, but there is little doubt that
> anything will come of it no matter how many participants want to
> do something about the seriousness of the issue.  There will be the
> two camps and the one will prevail because it will never be allowed
> to go further - not in the GA, not by the NC.

Whether it is allowed to go further is the choice of the Chair, I think.
And that's why I think the Chair should not need to read a "consensus"
out of the tea leaves in making that decision, but should rather determine
simply whether or not there is an issue of great interest, and are there
one or more positions regarding that issue that are sufficiently defined
to be set out in the form of one or more motions. When that happens,
motions should be filed and a vote called.

Bill Lovell


--
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm


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