<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [wg-review] The Number 2 Problem (solution)
I am new to this. What is the nest step?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Chris McElroy
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 4:59 PM
To: Dr. Michael S. Gendron
Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-review] The Number 2 Problem (solution)
Absolutely interested and anything is better than the ads.
Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Michael S. Gendron" <mgendron75@home.com>
To: "'Chris McElroy'" <watch-dog@inreach.com>
Cc: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 5:49 AM
Subject: RE: [wg-review] The Number 2 Problem (solution)
> 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
>
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|