Re: [ga] RE: Consensus on consensus?

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

This was one of the draugback of the democracy. This is addressed by 
consensus. Yet consensus gives only the general lines (everyone agree 
should some conditions be met). You are right the only protection we have 
is that the consensus translates into a general policy statement equally 
inforced (common law) so all the consensus prerequiste are equally enforced.
Jefsey


On 02:27 27/03/02, Johnson, David said:
>Any restructing plan must deal with the problem of the tyranny of the
>majority (or even supermajority).
>In a governmental structure, this might be handled by creating certain
>"rights" -- e.g., against "takings" or inequitable treatment.
>It's precisely the absence of such protections in the context of a private
>ICANN that gives rise to the need to construct a documented consensus,
>rather than just counting votes. (Even the votes of every individual
>participant, as Danny suggests, because even that doesn't confer legitimacy
>when the individual participants are self-selected and don't necessarily
>bear the burdens of the rules they collectively make.)
>
>I'm sorry to sound like a broken record on this, but ICANN's powers must be
>based on the "consent of the governed" -- and that requires that those
>required to follow the rules (and impacted by the rules) must agree to abide
>by them. For future rules, this inevitably means a "bargain" in which those
>signing up to follow ICANN's regime agree not to be irrational holdouts --
>but it simply cannot realistically lead to a regime in which those who might
>be bound by the rules agree to the outcome of a board resolution, or an at
>large vote, no matter what it might be, no matter how inequitably the
>burdens are distributed, etc.
>
>I acknowledge that very few in the ICANN process have seemed to "get" the
>idea of consensus (and that the idea has been much abused by false claims
>regarding its existence). And I agree with those who have suggested the
>value of some more formal (and open) processes to generate a record that an
>IRP could uphold. But all of the plans that have suggested re-jiggering
>board seats to create an authority that simply legislate rules ... miss the
>point ... and make the same mistake that the ICANN Board made in Singapore.
>
>For those who argue that consensus has failed because it's too hard to get a
>consensus on many issues, I must respond that: "you don't get it!" The point
>is NOT to make rules where there is substantial, principled disagreement
>from those with a stake. The point is to NOT make rules where there is such
>disagreement. (And to allow, in effect, local option.)
>
>Democracy is not the answer here. Because there is no way to define a
>satisfactory "demos" -- an engaged citizenry consisting of most of those
>affected by the rule making institutions.
>
>I personally think there is a way to shrink ICANN's mission back to the
>(still formidable) task of attempting to catalyze agreement on global issues
>that require coordination. The route mapped by too many of the "reform"
>proposals leads to creation of a global regulator that might be more
>"effective" but that would lack any claim to legitimacy based on "consent of
>the governed" -- in the sense that the welfare and goals of those affected
>by the rules would govern what rules are made. A much more promising route,
>in my view, is to introduce real competition at the registry level so that
>the competition between diverse rule sets (as adopted by registries) can
>allow the market to provide the voice for the "governed" to be heard. That's
>why it is important not to allow the development of objective minimum
>qualifications for new TLDs to slip off the agenda. And that's why those
>calling for reform, in various ways, need to think outside the box of
>traditional regulation and legislation -- and ask themselves when those
>voluntarily connecting to an inter-network should (and will) agree to abide
>(in the unforeseeable future) by policies with which they don't happen to
>agree at the time.
>
>The basic bargain that gave rise to ICANN was not (1) a delegation of power
>from the USG, (2) a conspiracy among a technical elite, or (3) an upwelling
>of virtual nation building by netizens. It was, instead, the shared view
>that everyone involved in the dns ought to be willing not to "hold out" for
>selfish advantage if most of those similarly situated and similarly affected
>were willing to go along with the general view that a global rule is needed.
>That's the deal. It's not about voting (though some voting might be useful
>to most the discussion along). It's not about empowering a new regulatory
>structure. It's about talking (hopefully, mostly, online) until we can
>figure out what most of those involved DO agree upon. It's about...
>consensus.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 8:05 PM
>To: ga@dnso.org
>Cc: DJohnson@wilmer.com
>Subject: Consensus on consensus?
>
>
>Karl Auerbach in his "Prescription-to-Promote" has argued that:  "The
>concept
>of "consensus" must be discarded", with all decisions to be based on counted
>
>voting using clearly defined procedures such as Robert's Rules.   Stuart
>Lynn
>has likewise argued that a private sector body, based on consensus and
>consent, has been shown to be impractical.
>
>This begs the question... is it time to replace the consensus process?  If
>so, how do we avoid establishing a structural model that relegates certain
>groups automatically to minority status?   ICANN seems to be enamoured with
>voting blocks... Can we move to a one-man/one-vote mechanism, and will such
>a
>move be accompanied with full membership rights for all participants?
>
>ICANN doesn't have the greatest track record with respect to honoring
>consensus... can we expect it to honor an actual vote of the complete
>membership?  More questions than answers at this point...
>
>for Karl's treatise, see:
>http://www.cavebear.com/rw/prescription-to-promote.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>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