Re: [ga] Consensus

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

Bill and all assembly members,

William S. Lovell wrote:

> L Gallegos wrote:
>
> > On 25 Jun 2001, at 12:49, Steven Heath wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > L Gallegos [mailto:jandl@jandl.com] said:
> > >
> > > > Please point out the document defining consensus for the GA.  If a
> > > > vote is not determined by a majority, what is the criteria?
> > >
> > > con·sen·sus (kn-snss) n.
> > >
> > > 1, An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole: "Among political
> > > women... there is a clear consensus about the problems women candidates have
> > > traditionally faced" (Wendy Kaminer).
> > >
> > > 2, General agreement or accord: government by consensus.
> > >
> > > While it is open to debate what the exact level is 'required' it is norm
> > > (IMHO) that at least 2/3 support would be required for consensus.
> >
> > Okay, let's say the GA agreed on 2/3 (not necessarily my choice).
>
> William X. Walsh says that he believes that to be the rule, but did
> not cite any reference.
>
> >
> > 2/3 of what?  The entire voting membership?  Has that ever
> > happened?  I don't think I've ever seen 2/3 participate in discussion,
> > never mind a vote.  That would permanently paralyze the GA.
>
> Best line of the day, from Jim Fleming:
>
> "consensus appears to be....'apathetic consent'"
>
> >
> > 2/3 of the 30 or so who do participate?  This has happened
> > already.  The few really loud ones squelsh those who disagree with
> > them.  One could easily draw a line and the two camps would be
> > obvious.  When does it reach consensus enough for a vote?
>
> Those who run the vocal minority will assert that the "vote" of the
> majority of the vocal minority should define "consensus," i.e. 12
> people are discussing, 30 vote, and 20 vote in favor. Whatever
> number were selected, 2/3 or whatever, GA votes can never define
> a consensus if only 10% of registered voters vote, it being even worse
> that our now astounding 322 registered voters is likely less than 10%
> of the people who actually follow all this poobah
>
> >
> > > The word has not defined just as we do not define other words that are in
> > > the dictionary.
> > >
> > > The proposed motion while having wide debate on the general issue of ICANN
> > > .biz vs non ICANN .biz reach nothing like 'wide support' to censure ICANN on
> > > .biz in the manner outlined.
> >
> > How do we know that?
>
> We don't. It's hype.
>
> > > Perhaps a motion worded differently would reach greater support, such as:
> > >
> > > That the DNSO formally issue a statement of concern against the ICANN
> > > board for the process in the granting of the new gTLD's (including but not
> > > limited to .biz) and that process of its inclusion in the USG root be
> > > reviewed by a taskforce.
> > >
> >
> > Hasn't that been done?  Is it the process or the decision?  or is it
> > both?
> >
> > I believe John's "motion" was a statement of more than concern. It
> > is being discussed on the ga-roots list, but there is little doubt that
> > anything will come of it no matter how many participants want to
> > do something about the seriousness of the issue.  There will be the
> > two camps and the one will prevail because it will never be allowed
> > to go further - not in the GA, not by the NC.
>
> Whether it is allowed to go further is the choice of the Chair, I think.
> And that's why I think the Chair should not need to read a "consensus"
> out of the tea leaves in making that decision, but should rather determine
> simply whether or not there is an issue of great interest, and are there
> one or more positions regarding that issue that are sufficiently defined
> to be set out in the form of one or more motions. When that happens,
> motions should be filed and a vote called.

  As you know a motion has been put forward, seconded by three
assembly members (You included) and two requests to the secretariat
to prepare a ballot for the said motion.

>
>
> Bill Lovell
>
> --
> Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
> to the reader may possibly be explained at:
> "WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
> GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
>
> --
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members 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:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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