Re: [ga] Eureka! Consensus... Definition? LOL

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Sotiris and all assembly members,

  Excellent observations on your part here Sotiris.  They have been, in
different terms and in many different ways, articulated before.  Including
by yours truly.  Esthers rambling and highly politically motivated comments
as to a "Definition" of "Consensus" indeed show clearly that there really
is no such thing unless it can be measured.  Therefore WHOMEVER
determines what the publics ideas, comments, and suggestions are
strictly subjective, rather than objective and determined to a reasonable
certanty as to whether they are widely held as subjective policy making
is inconsistent with reality most of the time.  Such "Consensus" based
policy processes are being highly debated on a global basis by nations
all over the globe as recent major events have plainly indicated.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Ok, now... for sure the men in white coats are coming to take ME away to the
> nice white room with padded walls scenario! Haha!
>
> >From a July 8, 1999, ICANN correspondence to The Honorable Thomas J. Bliley,
> Jr. Chairman of The House Committee on Commerce, there is the following
> (please read it carefully, it is a masterful piece of prose to which no less a
> personage than Esther Dyson herself put her name):
>
> "Because there were at the time of ICANN’s formation and remain today critics
> of either its bylaws or particular actions taken since its creation, it is
> useful to
> define what we mean when we use the word “consensus.” It obviously does not mean
> “unanimous,” nor is it intended to reflect some precise counting of heads pro or
> con on a particular subject, since in this environment that is simply not
> possible. What it does mean is that, on any particular issue, proposed policies
> are generated from public input and published to the world at large, comments
> are received and publicly discussed, and an attempt is made, from the entirety
> of that process, to articulate the consensus position as best it can be
> perceived.
>
> "Obviously, to the extent any individual or group undertakes to articulate a
> consensus of the overall community, its work is useful only to the extent it
> accurately
> reflects the consensus.  ICANN is no exception to this rule. Unfortunately,
> there is no litmus test that can objectively render a judgment as to whether
> this standard has been met in any particular situation. Perhaps the best test is
> whether the community at large is comfortable with the process and the results,
> and the best gauge of that is probably the level of continuing participation in
> the process, and voluntary compliance with the policies produced by that
> process.
>
> "This is, necessarily, a more ambiguous standard than counting votes or some
> other objectively measurable criteria, and it inevitably means less efficient,
> more
> messy, less linear movement, as the perceived community consensus shifts and
> adapts to change, or as perceptions of that consensus themselves are refined or
> change. Such a process is easily subject to criticism and attack by those not
> satisfied with the process or the results; after all, in the absence of some
> objective determination, it is impossible to definitively refute claims that the
> consensus has been misread, and loud noise can sometimes be mistaken for broad
> support for any proposition advanced.
>
> "Certainly there are those who do not accept that particular ICANN policies or
> decisions to date accurately reflect the community consensus, and there are some
> who are
> not comfortable with the process that has been employed to determine the
> community consensus.  No doubt reasonable people can differ on both policy and
> process, and certainly there are many opinions about practically everything on
> which ICANN has acted. Still, it appears that the process has actually worked
> remarkably well considering the difficulty of the task, as measured by the fact
> that most of the global Internet communities continue to participate in this
> consensus development process.’
>
> "If ICANN were not reasonably successful as a consensus development vehicle,
> it would simply disappear; since it relies for its existence on voluntary
> compliance
> and cooperation by diverse parties around the world, ICANN cannot survive
> without broad support throughout the global Internet community. The fact that
> the privatization process of which ICANN is such an integral part continues to
> move forward, and that most of the constituent elements of the relevant
> community appear to support continued progress, is strong evidence that, despite
> the inherent ambiguity and messiness of the process, it is basically moving in
> the right direction."
>
> -Now that last sentence strikes me as particularly interesting.  Especially
> the words "most of the constituent elements of the relevant community appear
> to support continued progress"...  The words "relevant community" are
> noteworthy and quite telling, actually.  For, a little earlier in the second
> paragraph we have: "Unfortunately, there is no litmus test that can
> objectively render a judgment as to whether this standard has been met in any
> particular situation. Perhaps the best test is whether the community at large
> is comfortable with the process and the results, and the best gauge of that is
> probably the level of continuing participation in the process, and
> voluntary compliance with the policies produced by that process."
>
> Who, or what, is the "relevant community" exactly?
>
> -Oh, and how about the last sentence on "consensus" in the first paragraph
> above: "What it does mean is that, on any particular issue, proposed policies
> are generated from public input and published to the world at large, comments
> are received and publicly discussed, and an attempt is made, from the entirety
> of that process, to articulate the consensus position as best it can be
> perceived."
>
> Perceived by whom?  the appointed officials?
>
> And a little further down in the same letter:
>
> "ICANN is Not a *Regulator* As this history establishes, and its bylaws make
> clear,
> ICANN is a creation of the Internet community itself; perhaps the best
> analogy, although not perfect, is a private standards-setting body. It has no
> statutory authority, and never will; its influence derives solely from the
> willingness of the various participants in the Internet -- both governmental and
> non-governmental -- to participate in the development of its policies and abide
> by the results of that consensus-development process. The global Internet is a
> voluntary network of (mostly private) networks, and it works in large part
> because the participants choose to work together to make it work."
>
> Comments please.  Especially on the part: "It has no statutory authority, and
> never will; its influence derives solely from the willingness of the various
> participants in
> the Internet -- both governmental and non-governmental -- to participate in the
> development of its policies and abide by the results of that
> consensus-development process."
>
> If so, how can a *REGULATORY* UDRP decision be considered legal or binding
> under any code of jurisprudence?  What kind of consensus process, among which
> community could produce an abomination like the UDRP to be foisted on the
> Internet Community as a whole?  Obviously somehing went very wrong somewhere,
> and the priorities got a little messed up... but, at least Esther had the
> prognosticative acumen to foresee such things and to pass them off so
> easily... I'm sure that will comfort those who've been adversely affected by
> the ICANN "experiment".
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>         a.k.a. socrates@greekphilosophy.com  ;-)
>
> BTW.... JULY 26, is International Remember Archimedes Day!
> Part 1:
> http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2001/06/17/stimazmaz03006.html
> Part 2:
> http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2001/06/17/stimazmaz03007.html?
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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