Re: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

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

Chuck and all assembly members,

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> If every decision has to be a consensus decision, nothing will ever get
> done.

  I disagree with this broad statement or evaluation.  We demonstrate
otherwise on a regular basis.

>  Moreover, not all decisions are policy decisions.  Some decisions are
> contractual, some are business decisions, some are legal, etc.

  Indeed true.  However with respect to business decisions regarding
ICANN should be bottoms-up, measured consensus.  As well,
some contractual decisions that involve ICANN, should also be
bottoms-up, measured consensus.

>
>
> 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;

  This one is lame.  Time is not the issue at all.  Proper time management
is done every day on a global basis.

> 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.

  True for the most part.  The reasons are many and varied.  However some
are as follows:  the NC has blocked many attempts at good faith efforts
in progress in the development of a consensus process.  The ICANN BoD
and staff have also served at times to block or thwart through paid
Consultants implanted within the DNSO GA in the development of this
process.

>
>
> 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.

  It is documented in the archives of this forum.  Such efforts have been
undertaken on several occasions.  In each and every attempt, actions
from either the BoD or the NC have thwarted or destroyed these efforts.

>
>
> 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@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