RE: [ga] Meaning of "Consensus"

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

A quorum is needed to validate a vote or a poll.  But votes and polls should
not be thought of as methods for evaluating full consensus.  At best they
can only be a small part of the overall consensus development process.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos [mailto:sotiris@hermesnetwork.com]
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 9:05 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: 'Patrick Corliss'; Danny Younger; [ga]
Subject: Re: [ga] Meaning of "Consensus"


Excellent Mr. Gomes!  Then you would agree in the importance of an
established
quorum figure for the GA, to circumvent capture by a subgroup on a given
vote,
yes?

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:

> In my personal opinion, Danny's points are right on target.  It is
critical
> to get beyond the point where we think consensus can be determined by a
vote
> of some subgroup of the overall affected population.
>
> Chuck Gomes
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:patrick@quad.net.au]
> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 1:20 AM
> To: Danny Younger
> Cc: [ga]
> Subject: [ga] Meaning of "Consensus"
>
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 15:46:45 -0500, Danny Younger wrote:
> To: <ga@dnso.org>
> Subject: [ga] Suggestions
>
> > My preliminary suggestions for DNSO improvement have been posted to the
> > Public Forum.  The URL:
> >
http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?dnsoreview1;3AC63E2A00000030
> >
> > I look forward to seeing your comments posted as well.
>
> This describes Danny's views on "consensus".  It is very worth reading.
>
> I quite agree with William X. Walsh that conensus requires more that a
> simple majority.  I do not agree that a 2/3 rds majority satisfies
> consensus.  What is needed is substantial agreement in the sense that
those
> who disagree accept the proposal of offer as the best solution they can
> reasonably expect or they don't disagree strongly enough to have a fight
> over the issue.
>
> Let's say you have a country with two racial groups.  One group has twice
as
> many members as the other giving them a two-thirds majority.  The majority
> decides to overwhelm the minority by taking their land, their personal
> possessions and even their lives.   Clearly there is no consensus.
>
> On the other hand, we have a vote about mailing lists.  :Let's say that
> everybody except one lone voice agrees that mailing lists are sort of a
good
> idea.  Some people think there should be more of less of them but, in the
> end, everybody agrees on five.   You could say there was general agreement
> even if everybody would have preferred a different proposal.  That's more
> like consensus.
>
> But please read Danny's comments following:
>
> On Sat, March 31, 2001 at 8:29 PM GMT, Danny Younger wrote:
> http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?dnsoreview1;3AC63E2A00000030
>
> The DNSO recommends domain name policies to the ICANN Board; these
policies
> purportedly are based on what has been termed a bottoms-up consensus-based
> decision-making process.  At issue is whether these recommendations truly
> stem from "consensus".   It is my observation that what is commonly held
to
> be "consensus" by the vast majority of participants in the General
Assembly
> and by members of the Names Council of the DNSO is not that which ICANN
> itself defines as "consensus":
>
> A "Consensus Policy" is one adopted by ICANN as follows:
> 1. "Consensus Policies" are those adopted based on a consensus among
> Internet stakeholders represented in the ICANN process, as demonstrated by
> (1) the adoption of the policy by the ICANN Board of Directors, (2) a
> recommendation that the policy should be adopted, by at least a two-thirds
> vote of the council of the ICANN Supporting Organization to which the
matter
> is delegated, and (3) a written report and supporting materials (which
must
> include all substantive submissions to the Supporting Organization
relating
> to the proposal) that (i) documents the extent of agreement and
disagreement
> among impacted groups, (ii) documents the outreach process used to seek to
> achieve adequate representation of the views of groups that are likely to
be
> impacted, and (iii) documents the nature and intensity of reasoned support
> and opposition to the proposed policy.
>
> To better illustrate this above point, let us consider a recent effort to
> arrive at consensus, an effort that began in response to the following
Board
> resolution:
>
>    Whereas, a proposal has been presented to the Board for various
>    revisions in the agreements among ICANN, Network Solutions, Inc.,
>    and the United States Department of Commerce that were approved on
>    4 November 1999 in resolutions 99.132 and 99.133 and were signed
>    on 10 November 1999;
>
>    Whereas, the Board intends to consider what action, if any, to take
>    on this proposal in its meeting to be scheduled for 2 April 2001
>    at a time to be confirmed;
>
>    It is therefore
>
>    RESOLVED [01.22] that the Board requests all members of the Internet
> community, including the Names Council and any of the constituencies and
> other participants in the Domain Name Supporting Organization, to provide
> comments on the substantive merits of the proposal no later than 31 March
> 2001;
>
> The General Assembly of the DNSO initiated the consensus process with
debate
> on this topic and came to the following conclusions (as reported to the
> Names Council):
>
> After thorough discussion, the GA has shown rough consensus in favour to
> option A, i.e. to keep the current contract.  A straw poll conducted
between
> the 15 and 20 March has given the following
> results:
> - 24 in favour of the current contract (option A)
> - 2 in favour of the new contract (option B)
> - 1 neither of the above
>
> Subsequent to this conclusion being posted, some members of the General
> Assembly expressed concern that the issue of the .org charter had not been
> fully addressed in the GA statement, to which the Chair replied:
>
> I have spent some time in going again through the 587 messages from
> 2001-03-08 to 2001-03-25, when I have sent the report.  I might have
> overlooked something for the second time, but my findings are the
following:
>
> - In favour of the change of the charter of .org: 0
> - Against the change of the charter of .org: 7
> - Against the removal of names: 5
> - No opinion on the subject of the .org charter change: 34
>
> If I misunderstood somebody, can the misunderstood party point out to me
the
> message that I have overlooked, or misinterpreted?
>
> Of particular note is the Chair's observation on the overall process:
>
> Nowhere I said that there was consensus on changing the charter.  I only
> stated that, should the charter be changed, there's consensus that the
> current bona-fide registrations be kept.  In all fairness, this is what I
> understood.  We have enough problems with the people that estimate that 24
> to 2 is not consensus enough, you can imagine the reactions to a consensus
> call that was more dubious.
>
> An analysis of the extent of participation in the above-cited debate is
> critical to our understanding of how members of ICANN view the concept of
> "consensus" or "rough consensus".  Comments on the .org charter topic came
> from members of the GA voting registry, and from nine participants not on
> that roster.  There are currently 291 registered GA voters, and with these
> additional nine participants the total contributory GA pool therefore
> consists of a sum total of 300 voices.
>
> Seven of these participants (02.33%) argued against the change of the .org
> charter; another five such members (01.66%) argued against removal of
names.
> Two hundred eighty eight members (96%) chose not to participate in
> discussions on this topic.
>
> Similarly, in the context of the GA position on the proposed Verisign
> agreement it can be noted that:
>
> Twenty-four participants (12.5%) were in favor of the current contract
> arrangements;
> Two of the participants (00.66%) were against, and
> Two hundred seventy-four (91.33%) chose not to participate in the poll.
>
> It is my view that the above numbers are more reflective of the phenomenon
> known as "last man standing" than as any true measure of consensus.
>
> Based on the numbers alone, a casual observer might conceivably conclude
> that over 90% of the General Assembly decided that these topics were not
in
> fact policy issues; that as such no comments were warranted, but this too
is
> not an accurate assessment.
>
> What is clearly true is that flawed procedures within the General Assembly
> have created a situation wherein the expectations of the Board
consistently
> fail to be met.  Consider the comments of Director Auerbach:
>
> *      As one who does have the job of examining and passing on the output
> of the DNSO - I expect well formed policy decisions, including analysis of
> the competing views, and backed by procedures that give me confidence that
> all parties have had the opportunity to fair participate.
>
> *      I support the determination of group opinion by the use of solid
> procedures that include the placement of clearly articulated issues before
a
> clearly formed electorate who make clear votes that are counted. As it
> stands, as a member of the ICANN Board of Directors, I am very unlikely to
> give credence to any matter that comes out of the DNSO unless I see
> objective data indicating that the DNSO has reached its conclusion by
> something better than the hand waving that has to date been called
> "consensus".
>
> Having only 8.6% of the participants in the GA determine that which has
been
> termed "consensus" (no matter what the decision) is comparable to having a
> vote of the Board of Directors in which only two members (10.56%) show up
to
> cast a vote.   One would seriously doubt that anyone would consider such a
> vote to be representative of "consensus".
>
> What is missing procedurally is an obligation to establish a necessary
> quorum to legitimize the decision-making process in the General Assembly.
> Yet even with a quorum, unless decisions are accompanied by a substantive
> "analysis" of the kind to which Director Auerbach has referred (and which
> are stipulated within the context of a uniform policy declaration), the
> pronouncement of "consensus" will never be considered sufficiently
> justifiable, nor will it withstand judicial scrutiny.
>
> An agreement on the requirements of "consensus" is clearly needed, as it
is
> most obvious that many participants in the DNSO confuse simple "majority"
> with "consensus".
>
> Even members of the Names Council obfuscate the meaning of "consensus" in
> their resolutions. by way of example, note that the "Names Council
> resolution on the proposed revision to the ICANN/Verisign (NSI) agreement"
> states:
>
> Parts B and C passing by majority and A and D by a 2/3 majority thus
> representing a consensus policy within the definitions of the NC by-laws
and
> referenced in the 1999 ICANN NSI agreement.
>
> "Consensus Policies are those adopted based on a consensus among Internet
> stakeholders represented in the ICANN process, as demonstrated by (1) the
> adoption of the policy by the ICANN Board of Directors, (2) a
recommendation
> that the policy should be adopted by at least a two-thirds vote of the
> council of the ICANN Supporting Organization to which the matter is
> delegated.."
>
> Significant by its absence is the remainder of this quote:
>
> "and (3) a written report and supporting materials (which must include all
> substantive submissions to the Supporting Organization relating to the
> proposal) that (i) documents the extent of agreement and disagreement
among
> impacted groups, (ii) documents the outreach process used to seek to
achieve
> adequate representation of the views of groups that are likely to be
> impacted, and (iii) documents the nature and intensity of reasoned support
> and opposition to the proposed policy."
>
> Also significant is the absence of the required "analysis" in an NC
> presentation that was not much more than a mere compilation of the views
of
> the constituencies.   Most obviously, not "all" substantive submissions
were
> included in the supporting materials, there was no written "report", only
> the declaration of a resolution with accompanying position papers; the
> outreach process was not documented, and an assessment of the relative
> weight or fervor of opinions was never prepared.
>
> There are no shortcuts to getting the job done right.  If we intend to
> contribute within the ICANN process, we have an implied responsibility
under
> the Bylaws to guard against the possibility of judicial challenge that may
> contest "the presence of such a consensus".
>
> It is our obligation therefore to provide for the requisite "document
trail"
> to substantiate any claims of "consensus".  This has not been done.  Only
> one constituency actually reported on the degree of its outreach and
> response to such outreach, the ccTLDs.  Out of 245 current ccTLDs, it was
> reported that:
>
> 1. Four (4) members are in favour of "A"  (01.63%)
> 2. Five (5) members are in favour of "B"  (02.04%)
> A result based on replies by less than 4% of the constituency members can
> hardly be called consensus.
>
> Whereas the remaining constituencies (Business, Non-Commercial, ISP, IP,
and
> Registrars) didn't even report on their outreach process, it is impossible
> to properly assess their conclusions.
> There are 180 registrars, but how many actually participated in this
> process?  There are 66 voting members in the business constituency.  Where
> are the records to indicate that any of them were even contacted?
>
> I, personally in Melbourne, re-submitted my application to join the
Business
> Constituency (after having faxed it in three weeks earlier). I can attest
to
> the fact that I was not contacted by the Business Constituency, nor by
their
> NC members, nor notified in any manner regarding a need to comment on the
> Verisign agreement.
>
> I am not, however, disputing that outreach occurred; at issue is the
failure
> to document outreach and response.  What is missing is a set of publicly
> accessible constituency mailing list archives that may be used to quantify
> results.  The ICANN Bylaws stipulate that "The Corporation and its
> subordinate entities shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an
open
> and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure
> fairness."  Without such archives we do not have the transparency and the
> openness that is stipulated.
>
> Solutions to our problems:
>
> 1. EDUCATION -- As the concept of "consensus" appears to be thoroughly
alien
> to most ICANN participants, the ICANN staff should present a workshop on
> this topic on every occasion that ICANN convenes in session.  Guest
> speakers, such as David Johnson and Susan Crawford, should be invited as
> expert commentators.     Documents on the topic of the consensus process
> should be provided as a link on the main DNSO website.
>
> 2. PROCESS - Those on the voting roster of the General Assembly should be
> required to vote; failure to vote will place voting privileges at risk.  A
> quorum should be established.
>
> 3. OUTREACH - As decision-making will be based on both outreach and
> quantifiable response to such outreach, each constituency must have its
own
> publicly archived mailing list.
>
> 4. WORK-PRODUCT - That which will ultimately take the form of a uniform
> consensus policy must be rigorously documented.
> <end Danny Younger>
>
> I agree generally with these views.
>
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> 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-full@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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