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

["Dr. Michael S. Gendron" <mgendron75@home.com>]

I have a web board at the university that has similar functionality, but
obviously would not require the ads.  Is there any interest?

Michael

Michael Gendron.. Ph.D.
Associate Professor
School of Business
CCSU

860-437-8322
mgendron75@home.com

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]  On Behalf
Of Chris McElroy
Sent:	Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:14 AM
To:	Dr. Michael S. Gendron
Cc:	wg-review@dnso.org
Subject:	Re: [wg-review] The Number 2 Problem (solution)

Thanks Michael. We have both offered to manage a forum and discuss issues
there so people just subscribing could easily catch up with multiple
subjects. I guess there are rules in place against doing it that way or
there is a lack of interest. I created on at http://forums.delphi.com/wgf1
with a password so people would still have to subscribe to the list first.
The pw is simply "reviewwg" for anyone wishing to take a look. I'd be happy
though if Dr. Gendron would co-manage the forum with me. The registration
for delphi forums is short and easy. All topics can be listed seperately so
anyone can post a reply on the topic they choose. The responses can be
emailed to you on the topics you choose to have sent so anyone can also
focus on the parts they wish too. You set your own preferences and a chat
can even be scheduled through there. In return for the free service we have
to put up with an ad going in and one at the top of the page.  Topics can be
added as necessary.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Michael S. Gendron" <mgendron75@home.com>
To: "'Chris McElroy'" <watch-dog@inreach.com>; "'Greg Burton'"
<sidna@feedwriter.com>
Cc: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 4:55 PM
Subject: RE: [wg-review] The Number 2 Problem (solution)


> To all:
>
> I have been listening for days, and to be truthful Chris makes a good
point.
> I am in agreement for the most part.  It is true that we need to come to a
> consensus on how we define consensus (pun intended).  Can we discuss this
> one issue and bring it to some type of closure, reflecting on whatever
body
> of law, bylaws, precedent, or other material we think is relevant.  I feel
> like we are going in circles.....I appeal to the chair to give some
guidance
> to this discussion.
>
> I have one problem with the electronic version of reaching consensus
(sorry
> could not think of a better word).....no face-to-face facilitation or
> mediation.  We need a vehicle to have a mediated discussion.  Not a
> discussion where free-thinking is squelched, but one where the ideas flow,
> but are facilitated by someone.
>
> In the academic world we make academic policy by consensus...that is - one
> person, one vote.  But, that is usually only after a sometimes exhaustive
> facilitated discussion.  There are some parallels between faculty
governance
> of a university and Internet governance by consensus.  Maybe we could
employ
> some of that model as we move forward...possibly employ some of that
> paradigm in cyber-space.
>
>
> Michael
>
> Michael Gendron.. Ph.D.
> Associate Professor
> School of Business
> CCSU
>
> 860-437-8322
> mgendron75@home.com
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]  On
Behalf
> Of Chris McElroy
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:52 PM
> To: Greg Burton
> Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] The Number 2 Problem (solution)
>
> 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
>


--
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