RE: [ga] Consensus on consensus?

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Chuck,
don't be afraid. The Internet *is* a consensus by the Internet Participants 
to use the TCP/IP protocol set together with the IP and naming plans.

Where there is no consensus is on the way to rule it. Don't worry they will 
never agree on that because you cannot rule a consensus: you can only serve 
it.

Look at all these talks, propositions, etc. they are about top-down 
authority vs bottom-up power. The Internet is just interested in 
net-keeping assistance. When you want to rule a consensus, it happens what 
happens to the ICANN right now, the consensus goes away and drop you.

Look at Lynn. He is and reacts like a guy who discovers that his girl is 
going away. He wants to force her back calling on his dad's money and on 
her dad's help. She is just bored. His dad is not sure he is worth the 
investment and her dad looks for a more interesting son in law.
jfc


On 17:39 27/03/02, Gomes, Chuck said:
>Before discarding "consensus," it seems like it would be a good idea to
>first give "consensus" a legitimate chance.  I still contend that that has
>never happened.  It would require a substantial investment in first of all
>establishing documented and objective processes and procedures that would
>guide the consensus development process.  That has never happened although
>there have been a few brief starts.
>
>As I have said before, it is okay if consensus cannot be reached on
>particular issues.  It should not be at all surprising that, in the diverse
>global Internet community, one size more often than not does not fit all.
>That is perfectly okay.  That allows for diversity in the marketplace and
>gives consumers choices.  It's a shame that there is so much fear of a free
>market and instead a desire for centralized regulation.
>
>Chuck
>
>-----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: [ga] 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

--
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