[wg-review] Immediate Vote on Voting -- Respond Please
Dear Miles, I thoroughly appreciate the point that you
are making, and I am willing to concede that there are significant flaws in
consensus-based organizations.
Even so, our mandate as a Review Working Group has been to assist the
Review Task Force on consensus issues: “To get additional input into a review of
its own consensus-building procedures, the Names Council of ICANN's Domain Name
Supporting Organization (DNSO) at its December 19 meeting established a Review
Working Group.“ http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr21dec00.htm
As
such, it is my belief that our focus should be more on “consensus-building”
than on voting mechanisms that tend to polarize positions (which is why I tried
to use a tribal council analogy).
To better understand the nature of “consensus”, I have taken my lead
from the definition provided in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement: 1.
"Consensus Policies" are those adopted based on a consensus among
Internet stakeholders represented in the ICANN process, as demonstrated by (1)
the adoption of the policy by the ICANN Board of Directors, (2) a
recommendation that the policy should be adopted, by at least a two-thirds vote
of the council of the ICANN Supporting Organization to which the matter is
delegated, and (3) a written report and supporting materials (which must
include all substantive submissions to the Supporting Organization relating to
the proposal) that (i) documents the extent of agreement and disagreement among
impacted groups, (ii) documents the outreach process used to seek to achieve
adequate representation of the views of groups that are likely to be impacted,
and (iii) documents the nature and intensity of reasoned support and opposition
to the proposed policy. http://www.icann.org/nsi/icann-raa-04nov99.htm
|