Re: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

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

Jefsey and all assembly members,

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Copied to Philip Sheppard as WG Chair.
>
> On 18:32 12/08/01, Peter de Blanc said:
> >Sorry, the .html got left out
> >http://www.cpn.org/cpn/sections/tools/techniques/consensus_democracy.html
> >And your link ending on ...tools is a good place to start.
>
> This is an excellent case based ("what i a consensus") approach of the
> general me/we model - (however it goes very far on details). You may note
> that most of the other posts described the consensus as something with live
> with but we do not know how to define.

  Indeed correct!  And as such, the consensus method is not usable.

>
>
> The consensus is a key compenent of the "me/we" model as I name it, which
> is taking over as a social, technical and probably economical model for the
> XXIst century society.

  How unfortunate this seems to be under great debate in many fora's.  However
it is also becoming evident that consensus processes are not being widely
excepted or working well in reality.

>
>
> In that model the consensus - and you all expressed it nicely without using
> the word - is what is "community correct".

  Good point!  >;)

>
>
> The consensus is a dynamic evolutive, multi-dimensional new form of the
> social pact applied to a community: one element of the community pact . It
> may be based upon a referent (reality, faith, program...) or originated by
> the community itself. It is obtained by the progressive filtering of the
> opinions the community leaders feel as inapropriate. This filtering may
> also be a "consensus by exclusion" of the undesirable members, then
> resented as "intruders" or more.
>
> The weakness of community originated "consensus" is that it may become
> totally stranger to the reality, a self-created creed giving however the
> community the consensus feelings of homogeity, stability and security.

  Indeed correct!  Which is what the ICANN BOD and staff seems to
have become embroiled in for some time now.

>
>
> A consensus may also become empty. We experiment that with the NC: there
> are so many positions filtered that there is no more substance. To correct
> that situation, changing the methods will not make any good - they are
> neutral. You have to remove some of the filters. IMHO the DNSO produces
> nothing because both DNSO and @large filters are applied to its consensus
> filtering process. DNSO will produce normally as soon as its @large
> concerns - and therefore filters - are removed.
>
> Jefsey
>
> PS. I would be interested in digging into "me/we" (ego-communitarian)
> model, and I am considering a three days brain storming cession this falls
> on the matter as part of the "governance" workshop started by the European
> Commissions.  Interested people from this Mailing List welcome.
>
> --
> 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