Re: [wg-c] consensus call results

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

I think that it's a *terrible* mistake to try to decide
procedural issues while the outcome of a substantive
poll hangs in the balance.  Fewer than two-thirds of 
votes actually cast on this question are in the 
affirmative.  If the majority (but less than 2/3 majority)
intend to cram the vote down ICANN's throat, all
that will be accomplished is to move the subject of
the debate from the substantive question to the
<ultimately silly> question of whether there were 
enough votes to constitute a rough consensus.

Neither do I think it was inadvertent that mention
of the number of explicit abstention votes was omitted.
In other words, the process itself is being gamed, and
the first victim in the gaming is the open and transparent
governance system which ICANN is mandated to
implement.

Kevin J. Connolly

But  . . . I'm also convinced that the majority will
proceed irrespective of the voices in the wings which
continue to suggest that the process is proceeding
toward the pre-ordained conclusion, without benefit
of thought.

>>> "Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com> 12/20/99 12:39PM >>>

On 20 December 1999, "Rita M. Odin" <OdinR@arentfox.com> wrote:


>Jon,
>
>I hate to argue with you, but you did not include the 3 abstentions in calcula
>ting the consensus.  There were 67 votes.  In order to have the 2/3 majority y
>ou need to meet your definition of rough consensus, you would need 44.666 (rou
>nded to 45) votes.  It looks like you are, in fact ,one vote shy of reaching r
>ough consensus.


...and I hate to argue with you, but there was no pre-announced rule for
handling abstentions.  In some systems, abstentions are counted as neither
yea or nay, and are only used to figure percentages (as you do above).
In other systems, abstentions are not considered at all.

To wit, Robert's Rules of Order, Art VII, S. 46, Para. 10:

  "While it is the duty of every member who has an opinion on the
  question to express it by his vote, yet he cannot be compelled to do
  so. He may prefer to abstain from voting, though he knows the effect
  is the same as if he voted on the prevailing side."

When in doubt, I say we go with the most common practice.  Since ICANN
is a non-profit entity incorporated in the State of California,
United States of America, and since many deliberative bodies in the US,
including the governmental system, use Robert's Rules of Order, I say
we go with that usage.   Normally one would look to an entity's bylaws
to discover which ruleset would guide in a situation such as this.
ICANN has failed to outline any such ruleset.


So, we now stand at a major nit, which we can choose to pick, or
move on:

1)  We revote, because people want to raise issue with how abstentions
    are handled,

2)  We keep the current tally, considering the voiced abstentions,

3)  We keep the current tally, considering both the voiced abstentions and
    all other non-voiced opinions as abstentions,

4)  We redefine "rough consensus", which has happened often enough in ICANN
    to suggest we'd be better off with a roll of the die for what 
    constitues "consensus",

5)  We round down instead of up.


-- 
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org 
Systems Admin
San Jose, CA

**********************************************************************
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
**********************************************************************