Re: [wg-review] The Number 2 Problem (solution)

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

Then in that case we will have to have a definition for each.

Strong Consensus = ?%
Consensus = ?%
Near Consensus = ?%

and whatever other definitions you wish to come up with making the process
more difficult for the average person to understand. If that is anyone's
goal here, to make things more complicated, then I retract any agreement
about consensus at all and go back to where I started in line with Karl's
thinking. One person, one vote.

I have laws I respect in my state and in my country that I personally
disagree with, however the majority voted for them and they are law. This
system, as flawed as it is has served us better than other systems that have
been proposed in a country where the population is quite large.

The Internet Community is much larger and reaching consensus is at it's very
best difficult and is in my thinking totally impossible given the different
cultures, backgrounds, knowledge, and agendas people have. This body of 145
people cannot reach a consensus that represents individuals interests. It is
in no way representative of the entire Internet Community. Therefore the few
people on the NC or within the DNSO or on the ICANN BoD, certainly can't
reach consensus that is representative of the entire Internet Community.

Again it reeks of closed door deals, whether it is true or not, no matter
how you define consensus. Greg you are fond of polls. Put one up on any
public webpage and ask people to define consensus for you. You will find the
majority don't have a clue of what it is and certainly don't know which
"Version" of consensus is deciding things for them on the Internet.

That in itself makes consensus invalid as a way of reaching decisions that
people feel is representative of their interests. They will always distrust
a system they do not understand. That is fact. Agree or disagree, but the
proof is in the pudding as they say. I predict your poll results if not
manipulated would prove me correct on this. I suspect even one done here in
this WG, if all the members of this list voted in it, would prove me right
as well.

Therefore my position stands. That only through a one person-one-vote system
can we achieve anything. People understand it. People accept those decisions
daily if they are on any BoD or any organization that deals with policy
making decisions.

Kent's reference to "Veto Power" assumes that if the majority voted
something in that the Techies at the IETF or other organizations did not
agree with they could just refuse to cooperate and that gives them veto
power. It does not give them anything except a way to no longer exist to the
majority who would then be presented with alternatives by more reasonable
people with equal technical knowledge. That would be like saying if AT&T
didn't like a particular new law they could just refuse to cooperate. Sure
they could. Others who are willing to accept that the majority voted and
this is the way it is would take their place and you can bet some of their
own people would join the new group accepting the changes.

The idea that only a few people be represented and be given more weight than
other groups is not only ridiculous but smells of  the type of organization
that Joeseph Stalin would have approved of. Consensus gathering only leads
to ICANN's BoD to be able to say we have sought public opinion and have
reached a consensus of their opinion and here is how we define their
opinion, therfore . . .


Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Burton" <sidna@feedwriter.com>
To: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 9:23 AM
Subject: RE: [wg-review] The Number 2 Problem (solution)


> At 04:00 AM 1/6/01, J J Teernstra wrote:
> > >The WG-Review has observed that reaching a consensus within the DNSO
was
> > >basically hampered by the lack of definition and therefore of comon
> > >understanding of what a DNSO consensus is and how it is determined.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >The solution is that this WG copies the way the NC determines consensus
for
> >its recommendations to the Board: raw voting power of 2/3 of the
individual
> >opinions present on this list determine WG consensus .
> >
> >I will put this proposed solution up for a Yes or No, so that we can go
> >forward.
> >We need an agreed definition.
>
> Regretfully, I need to vote "no" on this. I realize that this may seem
> extreme, but for me to be forced to call any kind of majority vote system
> "consensus" is almost as if someone was to tell an observant Jew  that he
> had to eat pork. I just can't do it. And no, that's not hyperbole - the
> thought actually makes my stomach knot up.
>
> For example, if we just call it "consensus" and Kent remains the only
> person to disagree that "the bylaws are misleading",  then saying "we have
> a consensus that the bylaws are misleading" would totally disenfranchise
> and disrespect Kent's position. I won't be a party to that just because we
> disagree.
>
> Incidentally, if we had a real consensus process, the possibility of some
> kind of capture scenario is greatly reduced - worth thinking about,
> considering how much worry has been put into that issue.
>
> Kent was exactly right in something he posted a few days ago, and it
> slipped my mind earlier. There can't be any consensus process unless
> EVERYONE involved buys into it, and into the possibility of achieving
> consensus on some issues.
>
> Anyway....I would suggest we call it what it is - a 2/3 majority (or
> "strong" majority) vote. This does two things - it refuses to buy into the
> "(riding) roughshod (over) consensus and broken code" definition we're
> operating under, and would hopefully prevent the NC from reporting out
that
> we'd achieved consensus where we hadn't.
>
> Secondly, on statements where we can achieve at least a 90% agreement, we
> can report that as "near-consensus", and on statements where there is no
> disagreement or block, we can report them as consensus. That will actually
> MEAN something then, and those recommendations should carry more weight.
>
> Regards,
> Greg
>
> --
> 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