Re: [ga] PAB Rules v. RROR

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

Kent Crispin wrote:

> You can't have read them too closely, since (for example) the voting
> mechanism is very prominently discussed, with its own section, and you
> say that it doesn't exist


No, I said they weren't detailed.  There's a hand-waving attempt to
address what is meant by "rough consensus", and the voting mechanism
is "silence=assent".  This is not a tool that adequately accounts for
an argumentative, politically charged atmosphere, and it is not one
that considers the environment in which we work.

As Joop points out, these rules were designed for people who basically
agree and need to work out details.  Unless you'd have your head under
a rock for the past few years, you can't possibly think that situation
describes ICANN as a whole or the DNSO in particular.

I said:
>> and disagree strongly.
>> The PAB rules are vague, are based around "rough consensus", and do
>> not outline explicit remedies for potential problems.  They do not detail
>> a voting mechanism, nor do they detail a dispute resolution mechanism.
>> 
>> In short, I believe the PAB rules are in opposition to, rather than
>> overlapping with, the rules I described in my documents.

Kent said:
>The PAB rules have the entertaining property of actually having been
>used, successfully, and in that regard are indeed different from yours. 

Yes, and are completely inapplicable to the situation here, as I 
describe above.

And as *I* pointed out earlier, much of the rules I proposed have been
implemented independently in WG-C out of necessity.

Why you fear structure and process, I'll never know.  But I'll tell you
this right now:  "rough consensus" will NEVER work in ICANN.  NEVER.
The very fact that we're arguing about this proves that point.

WG-C was forced to call a roll-call vote after its "rough consensus"
was questioned.

There was quibbling over one vote.

In such an environment, rough consensus can never, and will never work.
Only hard, fast, clear, precise rules will solve situations such as that.

Take your snapping, knocking, humming, and so forth and use it somewhere
where everyone is buddy-buddy and working towards the same goal.

This ain't it.

We've tried your way.  It failed.  Why not try another now, Kent?

-- 
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org
Systems Admin
San Jose, CA