Re: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Chuck,

I'd just like to pick up a couple of your points.

on 8/12/01 8:13 AM, Gomes, Chuck at cgomes@verisign.com wrote:
<snip>

> 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.

The fact that not many people belong to DNSO should not disempower DNSO, or
by that logic, we could never achieve anything without enrolling every
single domain name registrant in the entire world. Certainly I think they
should have the option, but in reality, it will never happen.

If we assume that present holes in DNSO are filled by the new Individuals
Constituency that allows direct membership in DNSO of the Registrants
Community, with all the voting rights and seats on the NC etc. that confers,
then it could be argued that the overall Internet community (excluding At
Large users who do not have domain names) has the opportunity to
participate, whether or not they chose to avail themselves of it.

As you have correctly identified, efforts at Outreach are crucial, and I
would add to that, the need to have internal structures and procedures that
can be scaled to larger numbers.

Now, are you suggesting that as part of internal consensus building
procedures, there should be a requirement to undertake external
investigations, and to admit reports from gallup polls, public interest
organizations and other such externally prepared data, or are you saying
that we may rely on our own internal DNSO procedures provided that we
undertake a reasonable amount of outreach to attract new participants into
the process? And what is a reasonable amount of outreach anyway?

Regards,
Joanna 


> 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