RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

I might point out that such a soft definition of consensus carries very
little weight in congress.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos [mailto:sotiris@hermesnetwork.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 2:54 PM
> To: ga
> Subject: [ga] Consensus... Definition?
> 
> 
> 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
> 
--
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