Re: [wg-review] Representative Figures

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear all,
please do not fall in the usual ploy.

>Philip Sheppard wrote:
> > I believe the posted set of constituency figures missed the fact that in
> > many constituencies members are associations. Indeed the majority 
> membership
> > of the business constituency is trade associations. Counting up the members
> > of the associations leads to the BC assertion.

Kent Crispin writes: "Members of this WG represent only themselves." This
strikes me as an unnecessarily arrogant remark.


This is the DNSO illness. Since - as Joe Sims testified it -
DNSO original mission has been altered to temporarily
host the @large concerns there a confusion between voting
(what is an @large approach) and consensus uncovering
(what is an SO approach). This is what should be currently
under correction with the @large study.


This confusion has been extended by the use of the word
"constituency" and therefore of voting last word.

There are votes at the DNSO to:

-  take decisions concerning the administration of its
    components (NC, so called constituencies)
-  elect BoD Directors
-  approve actions by the NC.

There are consensus uncovering methods for all the
rest other activities which consist in analysing the
real world situation (you do not vote to know if the
sun is blue) and in listing the different positions about
it (you do not vote to know if I dislike the sky to be
green and if you want it to be pink).

There is a practice I personally do not like which
consists in voting about consensus reports. I do not
like it as it is ambigous to understand by newcomers.
This practice consists in voting if the report is good
or not : if 2/3 or more say yes the report is
adopted. This lead to believe that reality and
consensus can be voted. The reality is, a consensus
exists or not. That a text reporting about them is well
written or complete is an editorial issue.

This misunderstanding is archi-used all over iCANN
including by Staff in the VRSN case to do two things:

1) to block opponent disagreements in saying "you
     are not representaitive" (BTW when Kent Crispin
     says we are not representitive, by which authority
     he would represent can he say that ?)
2) when two good friends agree on something and
    all the other disagree separately, the others are
    not representative (as per above) but the two
    good friends are a consensus "in the best
    interest of the Internet Community". Look at
    Plan A and B right now.


Now, a consensus is not a decision, it is an
observation. The only need to uncover if a consensus
exists or not is to know about existing positions, ie
to make sure that everyone who disagree may
disagree. You truely do not care about people
agreeing (except if you want to *report* about their
number).

So the most important thing in a consensus
management approach is the stability so the
largest number of opponents may know where
and how to oppose. Then, when you do not
participate it means you agree.

In this perspective the WG-Review has been a
huge success as an important number of people
has participated (including Kent Crispin who's
disagreement is a positive contribution to a
comple assesment of the reality).

In this perspective the WG-Review is a real threat.

The more this ML goes and is known and read by
many, the more it becomes a consensus tool and
the more it is able to help reforming the DNSO.
This is why the people who prefer influencing small
commitees voting on behalf of large numbers of non
informed people will want to close it.
Its an intelligenzia's defence against truth and reality.

You will never stop it.

I just want to add something: I think Kent is
perfectly aware of this. His analysis have always
been perfect (from a perspective I oppose though).

I do not think Philip Sheppard is wanting to kill
this consensus building tool: I feel he is more trying
to manage the NC in the best way. This only shows
that the NC concept is the problem.

So our role is certainly to protect the DNSO and the
iCANN against unilateral intelligent influences by
Kent and others in the Staff. And to help Philip in
helping people to think how they can by themselves
better use and serve the DNSO.

Obsviously when Kent is able to bring in here a
reasonable number of seasoned people agreeing
with him, I will certainly listen to them. Today I
count him as one opposition to what seems to be
a consensus.

Jefsey


PS. There is a say (please excuse the Frenglish):

"if you are truely alone of your thinking then you are
right: it is not possible for the world to count so many
wise men"


--
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