RE: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem

["Eric" <eric@springbreaktravel.com>]

Bob Jacobson wrote:
>DNSO can follow the
>practice of most courts of law, which is to permit several opinions on
>any topic.  Only the decisions that attain a majority vote become
>policy, however.

Don't forget that in a court of law the Judge is trained to be impartial and
has no interest in the outcome of the case.  Can we trust the DNSO to be
unbiased as well?

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Bob Jacobson
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 3:13 PM
To: Milton Mueller
Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem


I agree with Milton.  Consensus means unanimity and may be unattainable.
 ICANN strives for consensus and it results in problematic decisionmaking.

I suggest that DNSO instead encourage the formulation of majority and
minority positions, each of which can be floated before ICANN.
Consensus can more easily be achieved within each of the camps.  In the
event that a hard decision needs to be made, DNSO can follow the
practice of most courts of law, which is to permit several opinions on
any topic.  Only the decisions that attain a majority vote become
policy, however.

In this way, all voices can be heard and important issues raised, even
by those not in the "majority" overall.

Bob Jacobson
Redwood City, CA USA


Milton Mueller wrote:
>
> Greg:
> Your message makes me glad I nominated you for co-chair. I don't fully
agree with it! But it shows thought and leadership.
>
> Now let me explain. I think what you propose won't hurt, and may help
significantly, but won't solve the big problems.
>
> The presence or absence of consensus in a group, or its ability to move
toward consensus, is a symptom of certain underlying structural features of
the group. Adopting "consensus" as a goal will not change those underlying
structures.
>
> Your approach may make participants more civil, more willing to listen,
and even more productive. Those are important goals that I support. But the
DNSO still has to make policy choices, and that is an inherently political
process.
>
> YJ said she would define consensus as majority vote.
> I would propose a slightly more demanding standard - say three fifths. But
ultimately I accept the fact that we're going to disagree about things. The
pursuit of consensus, which in my book (and I worked with the Quakers in
anti-draft activity) means unanimity, or at least the unwillingness of
anyone to block action by the rest of the group.
>
> Not an attainable goal in this context, in my opinion.
>
> --MM

--
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