Re: [ga] Consensus on consensus?

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

Bill and all assembly members

William S. Lovell wrote:

>    > 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.

  Here I must also agree wit Bill on both counts.  The ICANN BoD
and staff assumes that consensus is something that they have an almost
exclusive right to "Declair", and did so with respect to the UDRP
decision.  No consensus ever was measured, and therefore could not
be determined when The ICANN BOD via fiat declaired the present
UDRP a consensus decision...  It was no such thing.  And that is
well documented.

>  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:

  Well I don't think that RRO is a "Bible" on reaching  consensus,
but it is a very good refrence amongst several others.

>
>
> 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?

  Yes it sure does ring a bell.  But perhaps you memory is in part
not quite all correct.  Things that were put into a motion format
never were allowed to be voted upon because in part also that
the Secretariat claimed that creating a ballot was too expensive
and therefore no ballot was created to vote on several motions.

>
>
> 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."

  Name one that ICANN ATLARGE.COM, of which I am a member,
has voted upon to determine any consensus to date?  Where is that
documented Bill?

> 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.)

  I in part agree with you, but also in part agree with Karl as well.
Yes the summation that Karl provides is very nearly right on.
But some of his ideas on reaching consensus are right on
as well.

>
>
> (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.)

  I must disagree with you here Bill. See:
 http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-DNSO-Motion-Reorg-vote.html
 http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-2motions-IndConstituency-DNSOfund-vote.html

>
>
> 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
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes 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:  972-244-3801 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