RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Then how about this;
majority 		> 51%
super majority 	> 66%
consensus		> 90%

The point is that, given a large group of people, counting noses is the only
thing that works. Anything less will have its legitimacy challenged at every
turn and the result of that will be grid-lock. That's the paractical issue.
On the legal front, we must be able to present evidenciary proof of every
decision. When Congress asks DOC for facts, the current consensus statements
are weak, rightly so. From a historical perspective, any decision reached by
a vague "consensus" definition will be indefensible and unusable in any
legal context. Basically, we may as well not say anything. The prime example
is the output of WG-A.

BTW Chuck, I actually agree with everything you say, in theory. I just
disagree, that it will be sufficient for this body to move forward with that
definition, in any practical context. In small committees, of experts, it is
easy to determine consensus. I do it at every design meeting. Even within
small groups of polecat^H^H^H^Hiticians, in those cases, I usually document
it as Unanimous Consent, with dissenting opinions. In larger groups, where
communications is usually the main problem, with individual lack of
preparation running a close second, voting/polling is the only way to weed
out the weak and ill-prepared articles and motions, in any sort of
reasonable time-frame.

We must design the process to fit the practical requirements.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]
> Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 5:14 AM
> To: 'Roeland Meyer'; 'Sotiris Sotiropoulos'; ga
> Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition?
> 
> 
> A '2/3 majority vote of participants' in my opinion is an 
> extremely weak
> definition of consensus.  It could serve as a guide during efforts to
> achieve consensus in the same way that a straw poll would.  
> It seems to me
> that votes or straw polls are good means of quantifying the degree of
> agreement/disagreement among 'participants' and that in turn 
> can be used as
> a step forward.  It would still be important though to try to modify
> proposals in an effort to try to reach a solution that better 
> satisfies the
> 1/3 opposed while still being acceptable to the 2/3 in favor. 
>  And possibly
> more importantly, the issue of representativeness of the 
> overall Internet
> community that is impacted by the issue at stake needs to be 
> dealt with.
> Consensus of some small subset of the affected community 
> should never be
> generalized to mean consensus of the larger community.  At a 
> bare minimum
> there should be a documented outreach to the broader community and
> documented results of that outreach.  If in the end, the 
> outreach efforts
> are deemed to be reasonable and members of the broader community are
> non-responsive, then it may be acceptable to conclude that 
> they are not
> interested and move forward with a consensus based on those who are
> interested.
> 
> The problem with the process I am talking about is that is a 
> very difficult
> process.  It takes lots of time and effort. Most of us want a 
> simple formula
> and I contend that there is not a simple formula.  I firmly 
> believe that the
> complexity and difficulty of the consensus process is a fact 
> of life if we
> truly want a bottoms-up consensus process.  Anything less 
> rigorous will be a
> sham.
> 
> Finally, one of the underlying assumptions that seems to be 
> prevalent is
> that we should always be able to come to a consensus 
> position.  It is not
> only possible but also reasonable that on many issues it will not be
> possible to reach a community consensus.  That is perfectly 
> okay.  In those
> cases we should simply let market forces work as freely as 
> possible and
> allow diversity so that consumers can choose what best meets 
> their needs and
> interests.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com]
> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 4:05 PM
> To: 'Sotiris Sotiropoulos'; ga
> Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition?
> 
> 
> 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
> 
--
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