[wg-review] Power and Consensus - was Bounced Message from Jon

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

At 11:45 PM 1/2/01, Kent Crispin wrote:
> > >To review: we agree that (in your words) "there is no way to compute how
> > >much representation each of the relevant stakeholder communities *ought
> > >to* have on the NC".
> > ...
> > >It therefore follows that the idea that the DNSO should be some kind of
> > >representative governing body is fatally flawed from the very beginning.
> > >It isn't a representative body, and it *can't* be.
> >
> > Replace "DNSO" with "NC" and I'll agree completely.
>
>The problem is that there is no way to assign weights to the
>stakeholder groups.  Therefore it doesn't make any difference whether
>you say "DNSO" or "NC" -- the basic problem transcends them both.

We are agreed on one of  the problems. The part of the DNSO that attempts 
to assign weights is the NC. If one doesn't attempt to assign  weights, 
then this is not a problem....therefore the problem in this instance is 
with the NC.

 > One of the reasons it isn't accomplishing work is that the existence of the
> > NC leads to these arguments over "representativeness".
>
>That can't be right.  There is nothing special about the NC -- there are
>a myriad of organizations with similar structures that don't suffer
>these problems.

Bumblebees can't fly, either. Unfortunately, it IS right. Name one other 
organization whose explicitly stated goals include bottom-up consensus 
building organized in this way. I can't think of one off the top of my 
head, and if there is one that doesn't have these problems, I'd seriously 
love to know how they do it.

I spent years of my life organizing and facilitating consensus processes, 
btw - I have a fair amount of experience in what works and what doesn't.

> > On a broader, philosophical level, the existence of a Names Council
> > conflates issues of power and control (representativeness included) into
> > the issues of consensus.
>
>Nonsense.  The issues of power and control preceed any particular
>structure.

Those aren't mutually exclusive statements. If those pre-existing issues 
aren't resolved structurally, they continue to bite people trying to 
participate. Consensus doesn't just happen, you know - creating 
consensus-based structures takes more than good will and effort, though it 
requires huge amounts of both. Creating a board structure where there are 
"x" participants lacking a say in board composition is a surefire way to 
create dissension. Assigning weights to groups even when you can't 
adequately weight the groups just pours oil on the fire.

> > Most of the discussion seems to center around "who
> > has power and why they won't give it up/who should have power" rather than
> > the questions of "does this structure actually facilitate consensus". A
> > rule of thumb:
> >
> > "If you need to keep looking at the distribution of power, you're not
> > looking at a consensus process".
>
>Ask yourself who it is that is looking at the distribution of power.

Who isn't? If a significant proportion of the overall group are continually 
looking at it, it's a structural problem - it really doesn't matter who 
they are. If ICANN weren't so explicit about the desire for consensus, it 
would be a lesser problem structurally, but because ICANN has an extremely 
idealistic view of what the process COULD be, it will be held to that 
higher standard, with concomitant feelings of betrayal when it implements a 
structure that makes it more difficult to achieve those ideals.

Bret has pointed out another problem in the structure - it doesn't create 
any motivation for compromise. I tend to agree with him on that, but would 
take it one step further - it doesn't create much incentive to either 
persuade or be persuaded. When group "A" has the power to set agendas, they 
needn't be terribly concerned with what group "B" thinks of the agenda. If 
neither group A nor B have the unilateral power to set the agenda, then 
they must work at persuading the other group.

A related issue here is actually embedded in your question, but it isn't 
really structural in the same way. A persistent focus on WHO says 
something, rather that what is actually said, impedes the consensus process 
by dismissing content in favor of personality. That happens a lot in this 
group, and it's not limited to any particular viewpoint or grouping of 
interests. It's easy to say "this process is bogging down because my 
opponents' real agenda is X", and people here just love to do it.

I have no doubt that there are people reading this who are thinking "Kent's 
real objective here is to obstruct understanding and to mystify the 
structure in order to maintain the status quo", and others who will think 
"Greg is just a long-winded pedant who must have some agenda other than 
making the DNSO workable". In either case, those ascriptions are 
irrelevant. What matters is that supportable views of the process are aired 
in dialogue, and that both the participants in and the observers of the 
dialogue have the opportunity to learn from it, perhaps modify their 
positions, and perhaps clarify their own thinking on the subject.

> > As long as there is an NC, we will need to keep looking at the 
> distribution
> > of power.......
>
>Once again, there is nothing special about the NC.  What you are really
>saying is "as long as there is a distribution of power, we will need to
>keep looking at the distribution of power".  That is, you are lost in a
>tautology that has little to do with the NC per se.

That's not correct, Kent. It has everything to do with the NC and the way 
it's structured. What I'm saying is "As long as we persist in allocating 
power through denying it to some and determining the share of the others 
through a process that we can't empirically justify, we will need to keep 
looking at the distribution of power."

I really hope you realize that I'm not arguing a theoretical position here 
- this is a basic pragmatic statement that would apply no matter whose ox 
was being gored. You're welcome to either agree with it or not, as you 
choose, but the truth of it doesn't depend on belief. As long as the 
current structure is maintained, it will have these problems no matter who 
sits on the NC.

>Could you tell me what you think the "power" is that is being
>distributed?

Certainly - the power to set agendas, to speak for the DNSO, to modify WG 
reports, and to elect board members. That should be obvious :)

Regards,
Greg



--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html