Re: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem

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

You are stating that this is an ever-changing population yet you  want to
keep whatever was already hashed out and "decided" before without further
discussion. You contradict yourself there. The way you have been handling it
may be wrong. Get over it. The fact is it will be discussed again and not
just by this group. As you said there are many new people coming online. Do
you think they are going to accept all of the policies that have been around
for years as you say they have without question? If so you haven't studied
human nature very well.

I have to question a process when it obviously isn't working well for many
people. Everytime someone decides to examine that you rush to defend a
system that the rest of us do not appreciate as well as you do. You act as
if we were not there then we have no right to question it. We do have that
right and will continue to question it until we have better representation.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic


----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Crispin" <kent@songbird.com>
To: "wg Review list" <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 9:58 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem


> On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 05:13:11PM -0700, Greg Burton wrote:
> >
> > >On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Kent Crispin wrote:
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Kent, I suspect that when the bylaws were put together, people did the
best
> > they could. It isn't working. Please don't take my comments below as a
> > personal attack in any way. I've gotten really tired of moderating my
> > language about this because I feel very strongly, but this is not aimed
at
> > you or any other specific person.
>
> I don't mind.  I hope you will take the following in the same spirit:
>
> Nothing you say below is new -- really, nothing.  The various meanings
> of the term "consensus" have been discussed ad nauseum since the first
> formation meetings of the DNSO, and before that during the formation of
> ICANN, and before that in the IETF.  I don't mean to be rude, but
> please, there have been lots of very intelligent, capable, informed, and
> aware people who have been working on this for a long time, people who
> know just as much about "consensus" as you or anyone else in this WG.
>
> ICANN was born to replace the functions Jon Postel and IANA performed,
> and IANA and Jon were centered in the IETF.  The initial drafts of the
> bylaws were drafted to implement Jon's vision, a vision he described in
> IETF meetings at least a year before ICANN was formed.
>
> The bottom line is that the notion of "consensus" that was used in these
> documents was heavily influenced by the IETF model; there is no
> reasonable doubt about that.
>
> Your hymn to "real consensus" was very passionate, but unfortunately, it
> gave no evidence understanding of the IETF process, and that is really
> too bad.  In fact, the IETF has had 15 years of experience developing
> its processes, it has been used in hundreds of working groups, and it
> has produced thousands of documents.  These WGs do their work on the
> internet using email, they are international in scope, they are
> sometimes incredibly contentious.  The IETF consensus process, in other
> words, is a real thing that has successfully produced real results in an
> environment very close to ours.  Moreover, the IETF consensus process
> handles a problem that your "real consensus" does not, and can not, deal
> with: "real consensus", as you describe it, can be forever blocked by
> someone who really wishes to obstruct it.  "Real consensus", that is,
> doesn't handle the problem of bad actors, and it can't, by definition.
>
> And it is a simple fact that there are bad actors in the ICANN orbit.
> There are people who really do want ICANN to fail, period.  That's why
> "rough consensus".  "Real consensus" is not achievable, so we do the
> best we can.  It's an engineering solution, not a religious one.
>
> Moreover, the people who drafted the bylaws were well aware of the
> problem of bad actors in consensus processes.  I'm sorry that Joe Sims
> didn't make it more explicit in the bylaws that he wasn't using
> "consensus" in your sense of "real consensus", but the simple fact is
> that he was not.  Concrete experience has demonstrated that your notion
> of "real consensus" is not adequate to the problem domain.
>
> "Real consensus", "rough consensus", "votes" are all just different
> tools for group decision making, as far as I'm concerned, with different
> characteristics, and tradeoffs concerning their use.  The IETF "rough
> consensus" process is notable for its success in an environment with
> many of the same characteristics as ours.
>
> In any case, I think you should study the IETF processes before tarring
> it with the brush you have tarred it with, especially in light of the
> fact that the IETF processes are designed to be used in the context of
> email and online discussion.  In the following *you* have created an
> incoherent strawman you call "so-called consensus", and then made the
> case that it is incoherent.  Yes, of course your strawman is incoherent,
> since you constructed it that way.  But your strawman doesn't relate at
> all well to reality...
>
> I have interposed a few comments:
>
> > -----------------------------
> > Real consensus cannot be imposed - it must be accepted by all the people
> > involved.  So-called "consensus" doesn't care whether or not the people
> > involved understand the process.
> >
> > Real consensus is not concerned with capture, because real consensus
can't
> > be captured, only achieved. So-called "consensus" is concerned with
capture
> > because it is afraid of power shifts.
>
> How does "real consensus" deal with the issue of an affected population
> that can change dramatically over a short time span?  How does "real
> consensus" deal with the problem of a constant influx of new people who
> don't know the history of a conflict or the issues involved.  It is all
> very well to be concerned about everybody involved understanding the
> process, but ICANN has a steady flux of newcomers that must be brought
> up to speed.
>
> > Real consensus cannot be declared - it can only be recognized by the
people
> > who have participated in the process. So-called "consensus" allows
people
> > outside the process to decide what "consensus" is.
>
> An absolute requirement ICANN faces is that it must document its
> decisions.  Hence, labels are required.  It would be nicer not to have
> to label -- I agree -- but those pesky lawyers need to see things in
> writing.
>
> > Real consensus focuses on where the people involved can agree and builds
> > from there. So-called "consensus" counts votes or calculates power
blocks
> > before attempting anything.
>
> You say the same thing twice, once in glowing terms, and once in
> perjorative terms.  In both cases you are checking where people agree
> before proceeding.
>
> > Real consensus is inclusive and civil. So-called "consensus" uses
ridicule,
> > personal attacks, red herrings, and a "rough" process to eliminate or
> > discredit those who disagree with those holding the majority of power,
and
> > to harass those perceived as holding power.
>
> Don't know what you mean here -- seems like you just threw the kitchen
> sink at your strawman "consensus".
>
> > Real consensus abjures the "power of the chair" in favor of the
> > powerlessness of the clerk. So-called "consensus" elevates the power of
the
> > chair.
> >
> > Real consensus means you're willing to not always be "right", because
you
> > recognize that your mind may change through the process. So-called
> > "consensus" encourages positions to harden through personal adversarial
> > relationships.
> >
> > Real consensus means embracing relative powerlessness for yourself and
ALL
> > participants and at the same time empowers every participant's voice.
> > So-called "consensus" stifles dissent and papers it over with empty
words.
> >
> > Real consensus works toward articulating explicit statements - be they
> > policy statements or action directives - on which the group can agree.
> > So-called "consensus" operates on hidden agendas and ambiguous or vague
> > language that cloaks the intent and mystifies any potential opposition.
> >
> > Real consensus has real rules of process which are agreed to by everyone
> > participating, and doesn't proceed until everyone understands the rules.
>
> Once again, this assumes a static population.
>
> > So-called "consensus" allows a governing body to create rules and
> > procedures "as they see fit".
> >
> > Real consensus works for full understanding by all participants.
So-called
> > "consensus" redefines words to disguise the process of mystification.
>
> You know, in all honesty, I don't know what you mean in the above
> sentence  ;-)
>
> > Real consensus requires explicit agreement or disagreement. So-called
> > "consensus" allows subjective interpretation of the "mood of the group"
by
> > some power figure.
> >
> > Real consensus works towards convergence. So-called "consensus" confuses
> > that with compromise.
> >
> > Real consensus aims at agreeing with your opponents. So-called
"consensus"
> > aims at defeating your enemies.
> >
> > The white paper mandates consensus. Instead of actually trying to
determine
> > how to achieve real consensus, putting any resources into it, or
educating
> > people about consensus, the mandate was papered over by using the word
> > without definition.
>
> Had they been explicit, they would not have used your notion of "real
> consensus", that is for sure.
>
> > This is a typical tactic of people who have spent too
> > many years inside the Beltway. "We can comply with the "letter" of the
> > mandate while ignoring the spirit of it by using the word liberally
without
> > defining it. If no one looks too closely, we can do what we want, and
still
> > claim we're following the mandate. Just look at our bylaws - we believe
in
> > consensus".
> >
> > Hogwash.
> >
> > The real root of the problem is that what is being passed off as
> > "consensus" within ICANN is a travesty and a lie. Once you understand
> > that,  to refer to it as consensus or accept the use of consensus to
> > describe the process, you participate in and validate the lie.
>
> Sorry you feel that way.  I agree that the notion of consensus used in
> the ICANN context is not as pure, in some sense, as your "real
> consensus".  I do not agree with you that the notion of consensus used
> in ICANN is therefore evil.
>
> > Henceforth, I will refer to the DNSO process as "broken code", rather
than
> > as "consensus" or "consensus building". If the above writing strikes you
as
> > true, I invite and encourage you to do the same.
>
> The above writing strikes me as a pretty egregious strawman argument,
> to tell you the truth.
>
> --
> 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