Re: The Emperor's New Consensus (was:Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C )

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Mon, Sep 20, 1999 at 03:52:47PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> one measures consensus by counting heads or whatever.  i was under the
> impression that the last count was quite non-consensual.  did i miss
> something?
> 
> randy

Given the contention on this issue, I went back and examined every
message posted since Sept 1.  The results I got do not agree with
Jonathans count, but on the other hand, some of the messages were
rather ambiguous, people changed their votes, and it would be easy to
get confused.

I won't address the issue of whether there was "rough consensus" or
not.  The chairs have made a determination, and, while it may be
biased, it isn't frivolous: In my reading, of those expressing a
preference, there is no doubt that a significant *majority* favored
the proposal, though with numerous caveats.

However, it is also absolutely clear that a responsible and
significant minority opposed the proposal, and, in my opinion, that
fact cannot be ignored, whether we declare a rough consensus or not. 
The IETF has an important safety valve that we do not -- if you don't
like a protocol, you can go try to start your own WG and develop a
competing one, and let the market ultimately decide.

A possible procedure under this circumstance -- what could be thought
of as a safety valve adapted for our circumstance, perhaps -- would
be for the opposition to draft a "minority report", which should
accompany any report of the WG, and be forwarded with it to the NC. 
Note that such a document does not contain any new information -- 
the opposition is documented in the email -- but it does allow the 
opposition the opportunity of presenting a coherent and thought out 
statement of the alternative, and a rationale for it.

Of course, the opposition may not feel that it is worth the effort to
produce such a report, or may not have the energy or time.  But it
seems to me that they are owed the opportunity to present their case. 
Furthermore, a division in a WG is likely to be mirrored in a
division in the NC, and a "minority report" may be passed on to the
ICANN board. 

Bear in mind that any of us could be on a losing side in the future, 
and might like the chance to present a response...

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain