RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

If every decision has to be a consensus decision, nothing will ever get
done.  Moreover, not all decisions are policy decisions.  Some decisions are
contractual, some are business decisions, some are legal, etc.

I certainly do not think that all ICANN and DNSO decisions made to date have
had the full consensus of the larger community, but there are several
reasons for this, a few of which I think are these:  in some cases the
demand for action did not allow adequate time for a rigorous consensus
development process; the DNSO had not yet developed and applied a consensus
development process that could be used effectively; the Names Council
sometimes acted like a representative body instead of a consensus management
body; etc.

You cannot force people to participate in the consensus development process,
but if reasonable efforts are made to encourage their participating, that
should be acceptable provided it is documented.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: technizmo [mailto:technizmo@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 11:34 PM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition?


--- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:

> Consensus of some small subset of the affected
> community should never be generalized to mean >
consensus of the larger community.  

OK.  Given this, does this make every decision yet
made by the ICANN and DNSO illegitimate?  Or has the
corporation been sufficiently represented by the
affected community of worldwide internet users and
providers.

> 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.

Outreach for additional DNSO GA membership should not
be undertaken for the sole purpose of legitimizing a
specific position on a specific issue.  Better to
perform outreach at all times, to educate non-members
as to the fact that they may have a stake in the
proceedings.  They can then make up their own minds
based on the discussion in this forum.  

Conversely, support for a specific position on a
specific issue should not be judged based on the
amount it is advertised, but rather (and more simply)
on the support it receives from participating members.

> 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.

Agreed.

> 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.

Sounds good, but those market forces have permitted
absurdly large organizations to evolve, sufficiently
powerful enough to take advantage of and control the
ICANN and DNSO, creating barriers to entry for
anything resembling a "consumer" interest.  This is
evidenced in BoD representation, DNSO constituency
structure, and the auto-NACK debacle. 

Sincerely,
Jason Graff




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
--
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