Re: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem

[ERIC@HI-TEK.COM]

Mr. Crispin,
I, as of yet, neither agree nor disagree with majority rule versus consensus,
however you must have some consensus on what choices the majority has to pick
from.  That is what committees and TFs and WGs are for.
Sincerely,

Kent Crispin wrote:

> 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