[wg-review] 14. [BY CONSENSUS] I am confused

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Karl,
I am confused about all that: IMHO this lacks analysis and solutions are
too complex to be valid. Always difficult to convey a feeling through a mail.
This mail is by no means aggressive. To the contrary it is trying to find
explanations from shared experience we could use, hence it critically goes
at the bottom of things.

On 21:33 07/01/01, Karl Auerbach said:
>On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Kent Crispin wrote:
> > 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:
>
>Yup, I oppose "consensus" because it is a synonym for "tyranny of the
>chair".

I suppose this voluntarily kiddish in a public mail. I certainly accept that
you have a poor opinion of "consensus" but it would need to be documented
(what do you name consensus? why is that "Chair Tyranny", how to prevent
it etc... anyway it is not the time and place for that). I just want to 
note that
this is the same for democracy. Every system which pretends to take decisions
with 150 self-selected people on behalf of 350.000.000 may be hi-jacked. You
may be right in your conclusions, but you will certainly know and accept that
your rationales are unbuilt.

>I support the determination of group opinion by the use of solid
>procedures that include the placement of clearly articulated issues before
>a clearly formed electorate who make clear votes that are counted.

This is only valid if the group is representative or authoritative with a
legitimacy. Certainly not the case of the NC.

>As it stands, as a member of the ICANN Board of Directors, I am very
>unlikely to give credence to any matter that comes out of the DNSO unless
>I see objective data indicating that the DNSO has reached its conclusion
>by something better than the hand waving that has to date been called
>"consensus".

This is acceptable. But it is a wording of decision maker or of customer.
Now just remember that 3 Members of your decision taking body come
from that NC. Here is one of the flaw.

You said you wanted Touton out of the game for him not to continue
ordering Jon Days services $100.000 a month. Don't do it yourself: i.e.
only to accept results obtained the way you want them to be obtained.
Look at the quality of the result first.

The main problem we have in this WG-Review is that people keep
talking about ancillary management methods rather than about what
is produced. As Ford's unions talking about salaries, working hours and
retirement accounts as the way to produce cars.

When I pick my phone I expect it to work. No to be democratic or
produced by consensus or by an US company or Spanish coop.

>Take a look at:
>    http://www.bitshift.org/rror.shtml

Taken once again in case something new.

To me it only demonstrates that RO are not adequate to Internet
working groups. This mechanism is old. I will try to make you understand
simply why I am ill at ease with it: the system uses the "floor" as a
metaphor. This is XIXth century. My metaphor is the "computer".
This is my culture, my way of life, my decision making assistant. This
is why I have motioned a subject about decisions "by consensus" by
Greg Burton. RO are certainly good starting point to build something
for the XXIst century, but there are others. New concepts to work with
in a new time (I think I can say that at my age and involvement in
networks since 1971). Using a computer, self-selected open panels on
Internet to reach a valid  decision acceptable by millions from thousands
cultures, language, trades, religions etc... This is a challenge.

Greg Burton seems ready to have a try. Greg's rules may be better
than Robert's ones or not.  I think its is worth having that try. And not
to be biased.

If I understand well - please correct me - with Roberto you tried Robert's
rules at GA (please correct me if I am wrong). Anyway GA applied ROs
at the beginning and still want to audit they way they use them. For me
the result is absurd. But you may have some comments explaining that
an other way. May be more positive, but you left GA.

>My comments below are as valid as ever:
>
> >     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.

The problem is that we do not have yet a system of decision which works.
And we have to work it out quick to get rid of what you/we disagree with.

> >     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.

Except that communities have representation rules
Groups are closed units
Businesses have shareholders
Government have decision and powers

us we have 130 people with 41 active to represent (today figures)
350.000.000 people who never heard about us using 100.000.000
hosts) and supposed to speak on their behalf to people from a BoD
which did not yet analyses the way it works: where 9 people come
from DNSO like structures, 4 are squatters, 4 are non communicating
and you.

 >> Here are the results:
 >>
 >> 41 listmembers made their nominations.(out of a list population now 
standing
 >> at 139)
 >> Karl Auerbach
 >Because I'm on the ICANN Board of Directors I am going to be one who
 >decides whether to accept, reject, or modify what comes out of this group.
 >While I don't feel that that is a direct conflict it is nevertheless
 >something that rests uneasy with me.

 >It is my personal feeling that what we are trying to do in ICANN
 >is to create a process in which everyone who is affected by a decision
 >can fully and meaningfully participate in the making of that decision.

Here I am taken aback. And probably most of us if I see the comments
received to my yesterday mail about the TF/NC/BoD confusion. If the people
we report to are leading the reporting, what's the use of such a loop. This is
neither democracy, nor RO's. This may be Greg's rules sometimes, using the
computer filter but you are the one saying too "let's dispense with new-age
warm and fuzzy thinking about "consensus" "

I hope I will not be misread. I really think there is a lot of work to do 
here,
gathering experience and collective thinking. But obviously none of the
existing solutions works properly. This is the only conclusion we may
have today. An IMHO this starts with the BoD itself.

May be could we call on Engelbart to help us thinking a little bit. Do
you know if he is still active? We used to have him on board at Tymshare.
I understand her daughter has taken over a few things?

Jefsey





--
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