Re: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem

[ERIC@HI-TEK.COM]

I would ask that we not overlook the value of the census, which is akin to
majority rule, as a method of validating a position and therefore facilitating
compromise.
Of course this would be learned if training is implemented.
Sincerely

Eric wrote:

> Regardless of how any of us feel about consensus, it is the structure that
> what we have to work with for this WG.  Recommendations for future changes
> should be included in our final report to DNSO.  We can suggest an alternate
> structure and  recommend training for WG chairs should DNSO decide to keep
> the current structure.  (Of course...we'll have to reach a consensus to do
> so...there's some humor in that somewhere!)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Kent Crispin
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 10:37 AM
> To: wg Review list
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem
>
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 11:38:48AM -0700, Greg Burton wrote:
>
> > Consensus is more than a word, it's a process and methodology. It
> currently
> > appears that there has been no training or education in consensus process
> > for members of the NC, for constituencies, or for WG chairs. In some
> > constituencies, this may not be required - in others it could be extremely
> > valuable. Expecting people to adequately facilitate a consensus process
> > without understanding how consensus works and what can be done as
> technique
> > is absurd.
>
> As Phil states, this is easy to agree with.  However, it does not get to
> the root of the problem.  The root of the problem is that despite the
> mandate from the white paper and elsewhere, there are those (Milton has
> expressed this view) who simply oppose the consensus model.  Karl
> Auerbach has been a much stronger opponent of a consensus model --
> here's a quote from the wg-d record:
>
>     Why people wave "consenus" as some sort of high and mighty thing of
>     angelic goodness is beyond me.
>
>     I consider "consensus" to be synonymous with "not accountable" and
>     suggestive of back room dealings and hidden agendas.
>
>     Let's dispense with new-age warm and fuzzy thinking about
>     "consensus" and simply run the DNSO the way that normal community
>     groups, businesses, and governments work -- with well stated rules
>     of order and clear cut voting on clear cut issues.
>
> Quoted from http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-d/Arc00/msg00038.html.  Wg-d
> spent a great deal of time discussing consensus.  I'm sure that you
> would find that whole discussion very interesting, and I encourage you
> to read it.
>
> This opposition to consensus processes contradicts one of fundamental
> premise of ICANN, and tends toward a self-fulfilling prophecy, because
> this opposition is in itself an obstruction to consensus.
>
> However, the foundation meetings of the DNSO also involved a great deal
> of discussion of consensus processes, and explicitly considered the
> issue of how to deal with cases where there was deep division.  In
> particular, when a single consensus position cannot be reached, the
> total output is expected to include "minority reports".  This was done
> in the case of wg-c, for example.
>
> In our current instance, we would simply note that there is a minority
> opinion that considers consensus processes inappropriate, and pass that
> along to the NC, which in turn would pass it on to the board, along with
> any other things that we or the NC would come up with.  The board would
> then make its decisions, whatever they might be, and direct the staff to
> implement the changes in the bylaws.  If the board was influenced by the
> minority opinions, then that would be reflected in these changes.
>
> Two further comments:
>
> First of all I think it would be a good idea for people to re-read
> Article VI-B of the Bylaws, which describes the DNSO.  The concrete
> instantiation of anything good that might come out of this WG will be
> changes to that section of the Bylaws, and changes to the Bylaws are
> constrained by a number of practical factors.  Re-reading that section
> will give you a much better feel for what those constraints are.
>
> Second, at the most basic level we can define a consensus process as one
> in which small minorities have a veto.  It is a reality that there are
> some very small minorities in the ICANN orbit who have an effective
> veto.  Consequently, trying to run ICANN or the DNSO through a majority
> vote regime is simply out of touch with reality.  It is also a reality
> that there are some numerically large groups that don't have an
> effective veto, and whose influence must be manifested through the
> marketplace of ideas, and the real marketplace.  These realities are
> heavy constraints on what we can accomplish.
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> 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
>
> --
> 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

--
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