Re: [ga] Consensus on consensus?

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

> consent, has been shown to be impractical.
Danny, etc.:

I've reviewed Karl's "Prescription-to-Promote" email, and I must say
that he is, for once, uncharacteristically dead wrong -- and evidently
joins Stuart Lynn in being so. As to Stuart Lynn, it has been proven
to be unworkable in ICANN because ICANN has never had the
slightest idea what a "consensus" really is.  As to Karl and Robert's
Rules of Order, if you read http://www.cerebalaw.com/BPIial.htm,
you will find my basis for those assertions, i.e., the "Bible" on reaching
consensus, which makes two points:

1) "consensus" means that everybody has reached agreement;
2) Robert's Rules of Order are designed for organizations that
have (a) continuity; and (2) an institutional memory.
Anything on line lacks both of those, not to mention the fact that
Robert's Rules are cluttered with so much procedural glop --
"Point of Order, Mr. Chairman!" -- so that, exactly the way in which
ga@dnso.org has worked for years, nothing substantive ever gets
done, and there is only endless hassle over procedural niceties. Does
any of this ring a bell with anyone?

1) is impossible, you say?  icannatlarge.com has managed to reach
consensus on a whole range of things so far, and "never was heard,
a discouraging word, and the skies were not cloudy all day." We'll
have the first election finished by mid-April -- it's an "attitude" kind
of thing that would only suffer from piling on procedural niceties.

(I might add that Karl's summation of the nature of ICANN is dead
right -- it is his solutions with which I disagree.)

(Another parenthetical as to the comment below that "ICANN doesn't
have the greatest track record with respect to honoring consensus": it
has never honored one because it has never seen one, at least any
that ever came out of ga@dnso.org.)

Fact is, there are ways to reach consensus in an on-line environment
and a first shot at trying to define such a way can be found 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

About in mid-April, this system is set to have its first try-out at
http://www.icannatlarge.com, and you are all invited to vet it
out.

Bill Lovell
 

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

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