Re: [wg-review] Confusion between majority vote and consensus

["Chris McElroy" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Crispin" <kent@songbird.com>
To: "wg Review list" <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] Confusion between majority vote and consensus


> On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 04:30:46PM -0700, Greg Burton wrote:
> [...]
> > These are similar enough in intent that I can agree with both. I'm a
> > "Quaker consensus" purist, myself - "consensus" means no one is willing
to
> > block it, "true consensus" means unanimity. "Quaker consensus" is the
most
> > common form of consensus process in general use, though there are
others.
>
> The consensus process upon which ICANN was based is the one upon IANA is
> based: the IETF model.  Consequently, whatever you know about the Quaker
> model may or may not be relevant.  The term is more precisely "rough
> consensus", from the IETF mantra "rough consensus and running code".
> It most definitely does *not* mean "unanimity".
>
> > On 08:37 AM 1/5/01, Kent Crispin said:
> >  >>...it would be a good idea for people to re-read Article VI-B of the
> > Bylaws, which describes the DNSO.
> >
> > An excellent suggestion, Kent. While I'd glanced through them before, I
> > hadn't actually READ the relevant section. I should have.
> >
> > ----bylaws excerpt from VI-B Section 2-----
> > (d) If two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the NC determine that the
> > DNSO process has produced a community consensus, that consensus position
> > shall be forwarded to the Board as a consensus recommendation, along
> > with all materials or other information that could reasonably be
> > relevant to the Board's review of that determination, including (but not
> > limited to) the dissenting statement(s) of any member(s) of the NC.
> > ----------end excerpt
> >
> > The significant fact here as far as this discussion goes is that
> > "consensus" as used here in the by-laws does not describe actual
> > consensus.
>
> No, that is not correct.  These provisions have to do with a decision
> process in the NC concerning how to forward (or not forward) proposals
> that are developed through separate consensus processes (which are in
> fact left largely undefined).
>
> The net effect of these provisions is as follows:
>
> It takes a majority vote of the NC to forward a proposal to the board;
> It takes a 2/3 majority of the NC to forward a proposal to the board
> with the label "consensus" on it.
>
> That's all.  This has nothing to do with the process by which the
> proposals themselves are developed.
>
> That is, while policies are to be developed by consensus processes, some
> of the internal processes of the NC are more rigidly constrained.  No
> big deal.  There is a complex history as to why this particular
> formulation was chosen, and why the NC was constrained to this schem by
> the bylaws, but the details would probably bore folks.  They do not
> really relate to the development of policies, and had to do with a
> battle during the DNSO formation between the "strong NC" school and the
> "weak NC" school.

By all means, Kent, bore us. How can the how the internal processes of the
NC not be related to the development of policies? Isn't that like saying the
way I was driving had nothing at all to do with the wreck?
>
> [...]
>
> > ----from the bylaws, VI-B section 2---
> > (b) The NC is responsible for the management of the consensus building
> > process of the DNSO.
> > ----end excerpt
> >
> > The NC is placed in an impossible situation through this corruption of
the
> > term.
>
> Nope.  The vote above is not part of the "consensus building process".
> These two provisions of the bylaws refer to two different things
> entirely.  (I was involved in the formulation of this, in fact.)
>
>  If 2/3 of ANYONE declare that they have a consensus, someone who
> > disagrees can quite properly claim that there was nothing resembling
> > consensus achieved on the issue, and a majority (I'm being conservative
> > here, I actually believe a near-consensus) of people with experience in
> > REAL consensus process will agree with them. And yet if 2/3 of the NC
agree
> > on a position, they are (apparently) BOUND to declare it a consensus
> > decision. Personally, I would refuse to serve in such a situation, since
> > being set up as a target is not part of my personal agenda.
> > --------------------------------
> > So - here is another statement - can we agree on it?
> >
> > Calling the current DNSO process "consensus" is misleading.
>
> Nope.  The wording of the bylaws may not be clear enough in
> distinguishing two very different things (the internal processes of the
> NC itself, and the consensus processes of the DNSO), but you are in
> fact seriously misreading it.
>
> --
> 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