Re: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

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

Roeland and all assembly members,

  It also carries very little ligitimacy/weight with stakeholders as well.

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> I might point out that such a soft definition of consensus carries very
> little weight in congress.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos [mailto:sotiris@hermesnetwork.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 2:54 PM
> > To: ga
> > Subject: [ga] Consensus... Definition?
> >
> >
> > Roberto,
> >
> > Forgive me for saying so, but your call for a definition of
> > "consensus" is
> > IMHO some kind of diversionary tactic.  Why, and to what
> > end...?  In its last
> > published consensus-based document the WG-Review suggested
> > the definition of
> > "consensus" as a 2/3 majority of vote participants.  Did you
> > not read it?
> > Must we have the same discussion all over again?  On the
> > other hand, we have
> > the very interesting declaration of what "consensus" means in
> > ICANN terms:
> >
> > >From a July 8, 1999, ICANN correspondence to The Honorable
> > Thomas J. Bliley,
> > Jr. Chairman of The House Committee on Commerce, from Esther
> > Dyson on behalf
> > of ICANN:
> >
> > "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.'
> >
> > --
> > So what's the deal with this call for "consensus" definition
> > Roberto?  How
> > about a domain name definition instead?  It would go a lot
> > further in cleaning
> > up the mess created by the ambiguous wordslingers who crafted
> > the entire
> > notion of web-policy by fiat ably branded with the obscure
> > term: "consensus".
> > This whole topic stinks!
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > --
> > 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
> >
> --
> 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