Re: [ga] RE: Consensus on consensus?

[eric <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Joanna,

Please do me a favor and have Joop create some links to your site when you get
to his page cited below.

Joanna Lane wrote:

> David,
> William S Lovell PhD and myself have been developing a concrete consensus
> building mechanism suitable for this situation for a while, copies of which
> can be reviewed at:-
> http://www.cerebalaw.com/BPIial.htm
> http://www.cerebalaw.com/BPIIial.pdf
> http://www.cerebalaw.com/BPIIIial.htm
> http://www.cerebalaw.com/BPIVial.htm
>
> This project was originally conceived for use by the GA, then was submitted
> to the ALSC in response to the call in their interim report for concrete
> consensus building mechanisms for the At Large. More recently, it has been
> submitted to the CDT in response to their call for online procedures. The
> next step is to commence a case study, which has been slated for the
> Icannatlarge.com website, where a special section has already been set
> aside. http://www.icannatlarge.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=10
>
> Please join us in developing this vital tool for effective participation in
> the ICANN process.
> In the meantime, all comments, both on or offlist, would be much
> appreciated.
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Johnson,
> David
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 8:28 PM
> To: 'DannyYounger@cs.com'; ga@dnso.org
> Cc: Johnson, David
> Subject: [ga] RE: Consensus on consensus?
>
> Any restructing plan must deal with the problem of the tyranny of the
> majority (or even supermajority).
> In a governmental structure, this might be handled by creating certain
> "rights" -- e.g., against "takings" or inequitable treatment.
> It's precisely the absence of such protections in the context of a private
> ICANN that gives rise to the need to construct a documented consensus,
> rather than just counting votes. (Even the votes of every individual
> participant, as Danny suggests, because even that doesn't confer legitimacy
> when the individual participants are self-selected and don't necessarily
> bear the burdens of the rules they collectively make.)
>
> I'm sorry to sound like a broken record on this, but ICANN's powers must be
> based on the "consent of the governed" -- and that requires that those
> required to follow the rules (and impacted by the rules) must agree to abide
> by them. For future rules, this inevitably means a "bargain" in which those
> signing up to follow ICANN's regime agree not to be irrational holdouts --
> but it simply cannot realistically lead to a regime in which those who might
> be bound by the rules agree to the outcome of a board resolution, or an at
> large vote, no matter what it might be, no matter how inequitably the
> burdens are distributed, etc.
>
> I acknowledge that very few in the ICANN process have seemed to "get" the
> idea of consensus (and that the idea has been much abused by false claims
> regarding its existence). And I agree with those who have suggested the
> value of some more formal (and open) processes to generate a record that an
> IRP could uphold. But all of the plans that have suggested re-jiggering
> board seats to create an authority that simply legislate rules ... miss the
> point ... and make the same mistake that the ICANN Board made in Singapore.
>
> For those who argue that consensus has failed because it's too hard to get a
> consensus on many issues, I must respond that: "you don't get it!" The point
> is NOT to make rules where there is substantial, principled disagreement
> from those with a stake. The point is to NOT make rules where there is such
> disagreement. (And to allow, in effect, local option.)
>
> Democracy is not the answer here. Because there is no way to define a
> satisfactory "demos" -- an engaged citizenry consisting of most of those
> affected by the rule making institutions.
>
> I personally think there is a way to shrink ICANN's mission back to the
> (still formidable) task of attempting to catalyze agreement on global issues
> that require coordination. The route mapped by too many of the "reform"
> proposals leads to creation of a global regulator that might be more
> "effective" but that would lack any claim to legitimacy based on "consent of
> the governed" -- in the sense that the welfare and goals of those affected
> by the rules would govern what rules are made. A much more promising route,
> in my view, is to introduce real competition at the registry level so that
> the competition between diverse rule sets (as adopted by registries) can
> allow the market to provide the voice for the "governed" to be heard. That's
> why it is important not to allow the development of objective minimum
> qualifications for new TLDs to slip off the agenda. And that's why those
> calling for reform, in various ways, need to think outside the box of
> traditional regulation and legislation -- and ask themselves when those
> voluntarily connecting to an inter-network should (and will) agree to abide
> (in the unforeseeable future) by policies with which they don't happen to
> agree at the time.
>
> The basic bargain that gave rise to ICANN was not (1) a delegation of power
> from the USG, (2) a conspiracy among a technical elite, or (3) an upwelling
> of virtual nation building by netizens. It was, instead, the shared view
> that everyone involved in the dns ought to be willing not to "hold out" for
> selfish advantage if most of those similarly situated and similarly affected
> were willing to go along with the general view that a global rule is needed.
> That's the deal. It's not about voting (though some voting might be useful
> to most the discussion along). It's not about empowering a new regulatory
> structure. It's about talking (hopefully, mostly, online) until we can
> figure out what most of those involved DO agree upon. It's about...
> consensus.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 8:05 PM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Cc: DJohnson@wilmer.com
> Subject: Consensus on consensus?
>
> Karl Auerbach in his "Prescription-to-Promote" has argued that:  "The
> concept
> of "consensus" must be discarded", with all decisions to be based on counted
>
> voting using clearly defined procedures such as Robert's Rules.   Stuart
> Lynn
> has likewise argued that a private sector body, based on consensus and
> consent, has been shown to be impractical.
>
> This begs the question... is it time to replace the consensus process?  If
> so, how do we avoid establishing a structural model that relegates certain
> groups automatically to minority status?   ICANN seems to be enamoured with
> voting blocks... Can we move to a one-man/one-vote mechanism, and will such
> a
> move be accompanied with full membership rights for all participants?
>
> ICANN doesn't have the greatest track record with respect to honoring
> consensus... can we expect it to honor an actual vote of the complete
> membership?  More questions than answers at this point...
>
> for Karl's treatise, see:
> http://www.cavebear.com/rw/prescription-to-promote.pdf
>
> --
> 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