Re: [ga] silence in RROR v. PAB

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

I said:
>Kent said:
>
>> In PAB (stop insisting I didn't read the rules, Kent.  I did.  Several
>> times.  Closely.
>
>Then your reading skills are woefully inadequate.
>
>[I should point out that the PAB charter references a separate document 
>for the voting protocol:  http://songbird.com/pab/voting.html]

Then you should have pointed that out when you brought them up, Kent.
When you initially referred to the PAB rules, you said the relevant
bits were in Section 6 of the Charter.  you never made mention of that
seperate document, nor does Section 6 of the PAB charter.

I was working from Section 6, since that is what I understood you to
be proposing, in toto, as workable rules.  Now you're saying that's
not the case, and that's fine; but you should have mentioned this
first.  This is why I was claiming the PAB rules were vague, and
working from the definition of "rough consensus" I was: You neglected
to point out the very specific voting procedure you kept thinking I
was misreading.  In truth, I never read it at all, because you never
mentioned it.

>>You've already admitted publically
>> to registering false accounts to these lists for the sole purpose of
>> voting.
>
>Mark, haven't you realized this yet:  I'm really Jeff Williams :-).

I take it then that you are not denying making that statement, and are
furthermore not denying that you have subscribed dummy addresses to
these lists as described above?

You're no better than Williams, or Baptista, or any of the others you
so love to deride, then.

>> It [rough consensus] will not work.  We have proof that it will not
>> work.  It's been tried in the WGs and has been found to be lacking.
>
>Here's a random quote from Jon Weinberg:

Is this quote from before or after it was deemed necessary to move
away from rough consensus and use formal voting procedure?  I haven't
yet checked, but I've a strong hunch it's from before, and your
'random' sample isn't as random as you'd have us believe.

>
>  "It seems to me (I said so then, too) that we ought to be able to make
>  progress on reaching rough consensus within this framework, and that
>  we can (and should) do so within the context of the 6-10 consensus. 
>  I'm hopeful that that's ground on which we can move forward."
>
>This demonstrates that IN FACT "rough consensus" is being actively
>pursued.  We use votes as a tool on that path. 

Yes, but the votes you always appear so eager to push are of the "hum"
variety.  These don't work in contentious atmospheres.

Yes yes, I know, PAB was contentious.  However, PAB was working
towards a common goal, although there may have been quibbles over how
to read those ends.  Much of ICANN and almost the entire DNSO are
constantly at loggerheads, working towards opposite goals, and working
actively against one another.  The touchy-feely "hum" method just
won't cut it there.

If for no other reason, there is no acountability with such a method.
There very much should be accountability inherent in any method
adopted.


>*Many* people are confused about the nature of the WGs and the GA.
They >are *not* representative, decision-making bodies.  You mention
the case >where people were wrangling over one vote in WG-C -- indeed
that >happened, but that is fundamentally an expression of the same
error you >are lost in -- that single vote didn't decide anything of
significance.

No, it didn't; I agree with you.  However, that was not my point.  My
point was that the opposing forces in these debates are so bitter that
they are willing to quibble over one insignificant vote.  In that
atmosphere, there's no chance that a LESS formal method will ease
tension.  It would cause more problems than it solves.

Additionally it would slow the process down.  One of the benefits of
the "hum" process is supposed to be rapidity of progress.  If a WG has
to go through the informal "hum", and then have it challenged, and
then go through the more formal voting procedure every single time,
what's the point?  The "hum" becomes nothing more than a time-suck,
and it's wisest to simply eliminate it and get to the more accountable
method right off the bat.

>I realize that there are people who would like to see ICANN's
>decisions made through a completely formal process, but that simply
>isn't the political reality.

Perhaps not at the NC level or higher; but right now, that's how the
decisions are being made among WG members, and it's working.  THAT is
the political reality at this particular level.

Yes, I'd very much like to see formal procedure and accountability
inherent in all decisions made by ICANN; yes, I'm aware that is not
the political reality.  I also strongly feel that will ultimately be
ICANN's downfall.  Someone will eventually have to answer for what's
being done.  When there is no accountability, scapegoats will be
chosen.

I note that the NC still has no written documents verifying their
legal lack of culpability for the decisions they make; I note that
this has caused some stir among the NC members.  Perhaps they are also
aware of this lack of accountability, and similarly feel that a
scapegoat may become necessary?


Once more, we're faced with the same old ICANN dilemma: Do we forsake
correctness, depth and breadth of consideration, and solid procedure
in order to buy haste?  Or should we, for once, sit down and actually
put a structure in place before we take action?

I for one am sick of the former, and would welcome the latter.  This
is something that should have been done when ICANN was formed, or even
before; it certainly should have occurred before substantive decisions
were made.  Now, the only choice we have is to correct that mistake
now, or further delay dealing with it.  Mark my words, the time WILL
come when it will have to be dealt with, and the longer we delay, the
more difficult it becomes.





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