[ga] Consensus... Definition?

[Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

Roberto,

Forgive me for saying so, but your call for a definition of "consensus" is
IMHO some kind of diversionary tactic.  Why, and to what end...?  In its last
published consensus-based document the WG-Review suggested the definition of
"consensus" as a 2/3 majority of vote participants.  Did you not read it? 
Must we have the same discussion all over again?  On the other hand, we have
the very interesting declaration of what "consensus" means in ICANN terms:

>From a July 8, 1999, ICANN correspondence to The Honorable Thomas J. Bliley,
Jr. Chairman of The House Committee on Commerce, from Esther Dyson on behalf
of ICANN:

"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.’

--
So what's the deal with this call for "consensus" definition Roberto?  How
about a domain name definition instead?  It would go a lot further in cleaning
up the mess created by the ambiguous wordslingers who crafted the entire
notion of web-policy by fiat ably branded with the obscure term: "consensus". 
This whole topic stinks! 

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
--
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