[ga] Eureka! Consensus... Definition? LOL

[Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

Ok, now... for sure the men in white coats are coming to take ME away to the
nice white room with padded walls scenario! Haha!

From a July 8, 1999, ICANN correspondence to The Honorable Thomas J. Bliley,
Jr. Chairman of The House Committee on Commerce, there is the following
(please read it carefully, it is a masterful piece of prose to which no less a
personage than Esther Dyson herself put her name):

"Because there were at the time of ICANN’s formation and remain today critics
of either
its bylaws or particular actions taken since its creation, it is useful to
define what we mean when
we use the word “consensus.” It obviously does not mean “unanimous,” nor is it
intended to
reflect some precise counting of heads pro or con on a particular subject,
since in this
environment that is simply not possible. What it does mean is that, on any
particular issue,
proposed policies are generated from public input and published to the world
at large, comments
are received and publicly discussed, and an attempt is made, from the entirety
of that process, to
articulate the consensus position as best it can be perceived.

"Obviously, to the extent any individual or group undertakes to articulate a
consensus of
the overall community, its work is useful only to the extent it accurately
reflects the consensus.
ICANN is no exception to this rule. Unfortunately, there is no litmus test
that can objectively
render a judgment as to whether this standard has been met in any particular
situation. Perhaps
the best test is whether the community at large is comfortable with the
process and the results,
and the best gauge of that is probably the level of continuing participation
in the process, and
voluntary compliance with the policies produced by that process.

"This is, necessarily, a more ambiguous standard than counting votes or some
other
objectively measurable criteria, and it inevitably means less efficient, more
messy, less linear
movement, as the perceived community consensus shifts and adapts to change, or
as perceptions
of that consensus themselves are refined or change. Such a process is easily
subject to criticism
and attack by those not satisfied with the process or the results; after all,
in the absence of some
objective determination, it is impossible to definitively refute claims that
the consensus has been
misread, and loud noise can sometimes be mistaken for broad support for any
proposition
advanced.

"Certainly there are those who do not accept that particular ICANN policies or
decisions to
date accurately reflect the community consensus, and there are some who are
not comfortable
with the process that has been employed to determine the community consensus.
No doubt
reasonable people can differ on both policy and process, and certainly there
are many opinions
about practically everything on which ICANN has acted. Still, it appears that
the process has
actually worked remarkably well considering the difficulty of the task, as
measured by the fact that
most of the global Internet communities continue to participate in this
consensus development process.’

"If ICANN were not reasonably successful as a consensus development vehicle,
it would
simply disappear; since it relies for its existence on voluntary compliance
and cooperation by
diverse parties around the world, ICANN cannot survive without broad support
throughout the
global Internet community. The fact that the privatization process of which
ICANN is such an
integral part continues to move forward, and that most of the constituent
elements of the relevant
community appear to support continued progress, is strong evidence that,
despite the inherent
ambiguity and messiness of the process, it is basically moving in the right
direction."

-Now that last sentence strikes me as particularly interesting.  Especially
the words "most of the constituent elements of the relevant community appear
to support continued progress"...  The words "relevant community" are
noteworthy and quite telling, actually.  For, a little earlier in the second
paragraph we have: "Unfortunately, there is no litmus test that can
objectively render a judgment as to whether this standard has been met in any
particular situation. Perhaps the best test is whether the community at large
is comfortable with the process and the results, and the best gauge of that is
probably the level of continuing participation in the process, and
voluntary compliance with the policies produced by that process."

Who, or what, is the "relevant community" exactly?

-Oh, and how about the last sentence on "consensus" in the first paragraph
above: "What it does mean is that, on any particular issue, proposed policies
are generated from public input and published to the world at large, comments
are received and publicly discussed, and an attempt is made, from the entirety
of that process, to
articulate the consensus position as best it can be perceived."

Perceived by whom?  the appointed officials?

And a little further down in the same letter:

"ICANN is Not a *Regulator* As this history establishes, and its bylaws make
clear,
ICANN is a creation of the Internet community itself; perhaps the best
analogy, although not
perfect, is a private standards-setting body. It has no statutory authority,
and never will; its
influence derives solely from the willingness of the various participants in
the Internet -- both
governmental and non-governmental -- to participate in the development of its
policies and abide
by the results of that consensus-development process. The global Internet is a
voluntary network
of (mostly private) networks, and it works in large part because the
participants choose to work
together to make it work."

Comments please.  Especially on the part: "It has no statutory authority, and
never will; its
influence derives solely from the willingness of the various participants in
the Internet -- both
governmental and non-governmental -- to participate in the development of its
policies and abide
by the results of that consensus-development process."

If so, how can a *REGULATORY* UDRP decision be considered legal or binding
under any code of jurisprudence?  What kind of consensus process, among which
community could produce an abomination like the UDRP to be foisted on the
Internet Community as a whole?  Obviously somehing went very wrong somewhere,
and the priorities got a little messed up... but, at least Esther had the
prognosticative acumen to foresee such things and to pass them off so
easily... I'm sure that will comfort those who've been adversely affected by
the ICANN "experiment".

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        a.k.a. socrates@greekphilosophy.com  ;-)

BTW.... JULY 26, is International Remember Archimedes Day!
Part 1:
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2001/06/17/stimazmaz03006.html
Part 2:
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2001/06/17/stimazmaz03007.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