Re: [ga] PAB Rules v. RROR

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 10:23:46PM -0800, Mark C. Langston wrote:
> 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".

As I said, you clearly haven't read the document.  The voting rules 
were very precise, and were actually implemented in an algorithm that I 
used as a basis for my votebot.

And you make an odd mistake for an expert in RRs: "silence-assent" is
fundamental to RROR, as well.

> 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.

Since you have no understanding of the PAB rules, you have no basis for 
such a statement.

> As Joop points out, these rules were designed for people who basically
> agree and need to work out details.

The assumption that you and Joop make concerning the character of PAB is
laughable.  To put it in terms you both would understand, it would be
like saying that the "Cyberspace Association" doesn't need strong rules,
because after all, those are people "who basically agree and just 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.

No, my head hasn't been under a rock.  I have been heavily involved for 
a lot longer time than you, and I have a great deal more experience in 
it than you, in fact.

> 
> Why you fear structure and process, I'll never know.

It is quite clear, Mark, that you have absolutely no idea what I 
actually think, and are simply shadowboxing with your own demons.

> 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.

You have a rather idiosyncratic notion of "proof".

> 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. 

Indeed, sometimes you need to vote.  That is why the PAB rules expended
so much effort defining a voting process.  However, even *you* go to
great lengths to point out that the rules you propose only come into
play part of the time...

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain