RE: [wg-c] We have no Emperor: Re: The Emperor's NewConsensus(w as:Re: [wg-c] IMPORTANT MESSAGE RE: WG-C )

["Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>]

Dear Readers:

One of the things I learnt at an early stage during the domain name 
wars is the importance of maintaining a global perspective.  Indeed, 
one of the primary criticisms of Jon Postel's Internet-Draft was that 
it was too US-centric, not sufficiently international.  I point this out 
because perceptions regarding the polling process are not uniform 
when considered internationally.

In the United States, there has grown up a perception that a voter 
is obligated to vote, and that, accordingly, a failure to exercise the 
franchise taints the non-voter as somehow obloquious.  No such 
taint applies in Western Europe.  In Western Europe, there is a long-
standing tradition of staying away from the polls to express a withholding 
of support for _any_ outcome.  The significance attached to voting/not 
voting explains why during the existence of the USSR, so much emphasis 
was laid on the fact that over 97% of eligible voters cast their ballots 
during legislative elections.  I will also remind those North Americans 
who snicker at this example that by most objective standards, the USSR 
was more democratic during the last 20 years of its existence than the 
USA was or is:  the rate of turnover in the membership of Soviets (both 
Supreme and local) was far in excess of the rate of turnover in the United 
States Congress and most State legislatures.  Neither do most North 
Americans suppose that the United States could possibly undergo the 
kind of fundamental change which unzipped the USSR into the diversity 
which now exists.  I am not saying that the unzipping was good or bad:  I 
am saying that the unzipping reflects democracy of a calibre which 
is unimagined in the United States (except by some right-wing 
militiamen in the Pacific Northwest).

Consequently, I reiterate my earlier hypothesis:  the lack of responses 
during the time that our chairmen believe rough consensus was emerging 
may reflect nothing more or less than that many members of this WG were 
not paying attention, or otherwise consciously were refraining from stating an 
opinion.  There are lots of reasons why they might not have been paying 
attention, including, most particularly, that a proposal was being touted to 
reduce/restrict the membership of WG-C.  The fact that the membership 
has not been winnowed does not detract from the validity of members' 
decisions not to waste their time or that of others by continuing a debate 
in which their voices and/or votes would play no dispositive role.

Please note that I am not saying that there is no rough consensus for the 
6-10 rollout.  Neither am I saying that 6-10 is a bad idea.  What I am 
saying is that the _way_ in which a finding of rough consensus was 
established and promulgated reminds me of the criticisms that were 
leveled at the IAHC.  (Again, I am not saying that the criticisms of 
the IAHC were correct; in fact, my opinion of the IAHC and its work 
is quite to the contrary.)  I should think that by now, participants in 
the domain name war would have learnt that the conflict is more 
about method than about substance.  I should also have thought 
that the chairmen of this WG would have refrained from using their 
power to marginalize anyone who chooses to differ with the 6-10 
rollout as being out of touch with the rough consensus.

Ultimately, though, I find it ironic that some have chosen to enshrine the 
process that took place as "democratic" while at the same time recoiling 
from the thought of actually taking a vote.  Again, this is not about substance, 
it's about process.  A lack of attention to process has resulted in a great deal 
of hard work in the domain name wars coming to grief already.  

Let's not perpetuate the mistake.

Kevin J. Connolly
Verbum sapientiae satis est; encyclopedia gikae non est satis; este sapientiae, non gikae.

<As usual, please disregard the silly trailer>

**********************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
**********************************************************************