Re: [ga] Re: Consensus... Definition?

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> Perhaps Sotiris is right...
>
> How many times have we discussed the topic of consensus already?  Every time
> that we have serious issues on our plate... the need to restructure ICANN
> into a more representative body, the need to deal with registrar transfer
> policies that are holding domain owners hostage, the need to address problems
> with the SRS... on each such occasion, our Names Council representatives and
> some others prefer to talk instead about "consensus".   To paraphrase a
> frequent contributor to this list, "This is a rathole."  We are being
> victimized by diversionary tactics.

In this particular context, the "consensus" topic is indeed being used as a
diversion
from the matter(s) at hand. The reason that the tactic works, however, is easy to
see:
no viable definition exists (or is going to), so the same pie gets baked over and
over
again.  With a proper, operational means for determining whether the (essential)
presence of a consensus can be shown, as I believe the Best Practices procedure
will provide, this gambit will no longer work.  (The "bad actors" on the stage
will
most certainly get the hook, since the "diversion" flags will inevitably pop up.)

> Rather than allowing the Review WG to continue its work and "officially"
> settle the issue, our Council decided to terminate the WG and convene a Task
> Force to determine "a practical definition" of consensus.  The ball is in
> their court now.  Let them do their own work (as they were perfectly willing
> to terminate our work in this area).  If you must continue conversations on
> this topic, why not send your comments to the Chair of the Review Task Force?
>    His email address is philip.sheppard@aim.be

This post is also being copied to him. I would be very pleased to find out what
"practical definition" may have been worked out -- or at least is in the mil (in
the process of being developed).

> Maybe one day he'll actually open up his "web-based forum" and allow you all
> to participate.  In the meantime, as long as there are those with the power
> to thwart your declarations of consensus, you will have accomplished nothing
> with all your sophistry.

As indicated earlier by Joanna, Best Practices Part II - Flow Chart will shortly
be published in living color, and comments thereon (as to "consensus" or any
other aspect thereof) will be welcomed by both Joanna and myself.  In the BP,
"consensus" is not established by sophistry (words), but by actions taken, and
that is as "practical" as one can get.

Bill Lovell

--
Any terms 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
Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found 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