Re: Re[2]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

[Bruce James <bmjames@swbell.net>]

>>I understand that none of this is usable with regard to the current issues
of the proposed new VeriSign agreements, but the debate regarding those
agreements seems to clearly illustrate some of the needs as we look to
improvement in the future.

Chuck<<

I agree with Chuck. We, the GA, do need more time in any given question
before us.
It is quite unfair to the GA to be put under a short time frame to make a
informed decision.

A valid consensus can only be determined based on those that participate.
Those who choose not to voice an opinion/vote do so at their own risk.

American voting history shows that in a given public vote on a local issue a
5% to 10% turnout of voters happens. A sad fact of voter apathy. This group
is no different.

/Bruce




----- Original Message -----
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
To: "'William X. Walsh'" <william@userfriendly.com>; "Sandy Harris"
<sandy@storm.ca>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 7:03 AM
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract


I hope that William and Sandy do not mind if I join their two-way dialog.  I
personally believe that they are discussing a very critical issue with
regard to the consensus building process, one that I think needs attention
if we are ever going to create an effective process.

I certainly understand William's points.  You cannot make stakeholders
participate.  But at the same time it does not necessarily follow that lack
of participation means lack of interest or need nor does it mean that the
non-participants are in agreement with the vocal minority.  There are
undoubtedly a large number of alternative explanations for lack of
participation to include lack of awareness, insufficient time, lack of
understanding of what really is at stake, etc.

If we are to be successful in building a truly workable consensus building
process, there are several steps that I believe will be essential: (1)
thorough identification of who the key stakeholders are; (2) outreach to as
many key stakeholders as possible using means that are hopefully workable
for them; (3) educating stakeholders who are open to learning, including
helping them understand possible consequences of pending decisions; (4)
developing methodologies to objectively evaluate level of consensus achieved
and to find creative alternatives when consensus cannot be achieved; (5)
implementing sound documentation procedures of the consensus process.

As I indicated in an earlier post, what I am talking about is far from a
trivial exercise. It will not only require extensive time to develop but
once it is in place it will require extensive time to work through the
process on a given issue.  But if we sincerely want to make policy decisions
that will be the best for the broadest possible audience and for the longest
possible time going forward, it will be worth the effort.  And then I think
we will come close to having a truly bottom-up process.

I understand that none of this is usable with regard to the current issues
of the proposed new VeriSign agreements, but the debate regarding those
agreements seems to clearly illustrate some of the needs as we look to
improvement in the future.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:william@userfriendly.com]
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 1:01 AM
To: Sandy Harris
Cc: ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract


Hello Sandy,

Sunday, March 25, 2001, 9:28:22 PM, Sandy Harris wrote:

> "William X. Walsh" wrote:

>> > Thanks, William. But, actually, not very many people voted, did they?
...
>>
>> No, the failure to vote means that they have consented to not being
>> taken into account, ...

> Nonsense.

Back this up, then Sandy.  How should non-participation be considered
when deciding what consensus of the GA is?


>> It's a tactic agreement with whatever the result is, since by not
>> participating they have voluntarily given up their right to object to
>> it being the consensus.

> Not voting gives up the right to vote on that issue, nothing more.

And it also means that the declaration of consensus cannot be
invalidated because they want to come along later and declare an
objection once the issue has been sent on.

So please, explain your point.

>> One cannot claim that because people were silent that the consensus is
>> invalid.

> No, but conversely there is no reason to imagine that a vote indicates
> a valid consensus, short of a unanimous vote of all players.

A valid consensus can ONLY be determined based on those that
PARTICIPATE.

So please, again, explain yourself here.


--
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com


--
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


--
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