<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition?
Let me recall that the WG-D, which has been working on methodology
for policy reports, have been producing a substancial set of usefull
guidelines for Working Groups, including considerations about consensus.
* 09 Apr 2001, Report and Recommendation from WG-D presented to the NC
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010409.NCwgd-report.html
* 31 Jan 2001, Report and Recommendation from WG-D (includes
"Processes and Procedures for the Working Groups of ICANN's
Domain Name Supporting Organization")
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-d/Arc02/msg00000.html
* 13 Sep 1999, Methodology for ICANN consensus-based reports, input to WG-D
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990913.Methodology-for-reports.html
Elisabeth Porteneuve
--
> From owner-ga@dnso.org Sun Aug 12 14:25 MET 2001
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
> To: "'Roeland Meyer'" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>,
> "'Sotiris Sotiropoulos'"
> <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>,
> ga <ga@dnso.org>
> Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition?
> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 08:13:39 -0400
>
> A '2/3 majority vote of participants' in my opinion is an extremely weak
> definition of consensus. It could serve as a guide during efforts to
> achieve consensus in the same way that a straw poll would. It seems to me
> that votes or straw polls are good means of quantifying the degree of
> agreement/disagreement among 'participants' and that in turn can be used as
> a step forward. It would still be important though to try to modify
> proposals in an effort to try to reach a solution that better satisfies the
> 1/3 opposed while still being acceptable to the 2/3 in favor. And possibly
> more importantly, the issue of representativeness of the overall Internet
> community that is impacted by the issue at stake needs to be dealt with.
> Consensus of some small subset of the affected community should never be
> generalized to mean consensus of the larger community. At a bare minimum
> there should be a documented outreach to the broader community and
> documented results of that outreach. If in the end, the outreach efforts
> are deemed to be reasonable and members of the broader community are
> non-responsive, then it may be acceptable to conclude that they are not
> interested and move forward with a consensus based on those who are
> interested.
>
> The problem with the process I am talking about is that is a very difficult
> process. It takes lots of time and effort. Most of us want a simple formula
> and I contend that there is not a simple formula. I firmly believe that the
> complexity and difficulty of the consensus process is a fact of life if we
> truly want a bottoms-up consensus process. Anything less rigorous will be a
> sham.
>
> Finally, one of the underlying assumptions that seems to be prevalent is
> that we should always be able to come to a consensus position. It is not
> only possible but also reasonable that on many issues it will not be
> possible to reach a community consensus. That is perfectly okay. In those
> cases we should simply let market forces work as freely as possible and
> allow diversity so that consumers can choose what best meets their needs and
> interests.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com]
> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 4:05 PM
> To: 'Sotiris Sotiropoulos'; ga
> Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition?
>
>
> 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
> --
> 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-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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|