Re: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

The Best Practices Flow Chart will be published within the next 24 hours,
posted to a URL and available as PDF document.

Kendall needs a little more time to add a color code that can be used to
clarify a timeline for each procedure. For example: red procedures = 24
hours, blue procedures= 7 days.

It's a step by step guide to providing the paper trail that has been missing
from consensus building. You're going to love it.

Regards,
Joanna 

on 8/12/01 11:56 AM, Roeland Meyer at rmeyer@mhsc.com wrote:

> 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
> 

--
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