Re: [ga] Consensus on consensus?

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

Chuck and all assembly members,

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Before discarding "consensus," it seems like it would be a good idea to
> first give "consensus" a legitimate chance.

  In part I agree.  The problem is that the ICANN Staff and BoD
will not allow or agree to have consensus measured so as to determine
IF such a consensus exists, or attempts to censor some participants
from having a vote for one reason or another.

>  I still contend that that has
> never happened.  It would require a substantial investment in first of all
> establishing documented and objective processes and procedures that would
> guide the consensus development process.  That has never happened although
> there have been a few brief starts.

  Again this is only partly true Chuck.  Several good methods have been
defined on more than a few occasions and are documented, and re-documented.
But again the ICANN BOD and staff have refused to recognize them even
though they are broadly used in other fora.

>
>
> As I have said before, it is okay if consensus cannot be reached on
> particular issues.

  Of course it is!

> It should not be at all surprising that, in the diverse
> global Internet community, one size more often than not does not fit all.
> That is perfectly okay.

  Yep.

>  That allows for diversity in the marketplace and
> gives consumers choices.  It's a shame that there is so much fear of a free
> market and instead a desire for centralized regulation.

  Well the Capture of ICANN by CORE and it's predecessor the
IAHC followers, has precluded that the Religion of them being the
Central Regulatory body has precluded to a great extent the
free market form performing as it should, and would...

>
>
> Chuck
>
> -----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: [ga] 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

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