Re: [ga] Meaning of "Consensus"

["William S. Lovell" <cereba@oregonvos.net>]

"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:

> A quorum is needed to validate a vote or a poll.  But votes and polls should
> not be thought of as methods for evaluating full consensus.  At best they
> can only be a small part of the overall consensus development process.
>
> Chuck

Exactly correct, Chuck.  Welcome back to the maelstrom!

Bill Lovell

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos [mailto:sotiris@hermesnetwork.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 9:05 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: 'Patrick Corliss'; Danny Younger; [ga]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Meaning of "Consensus"
>
> Excellent Mr. Gomes!  Then you would agree in the importance of an
> established
> quorum figure for the GA, to circumvent capture by a subgroup on a given
> vote,
> yes?
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
> "Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
>
> > In my personal opinion, Danny's points are right on target.  It is
> critical
> > to get beyond the point where we think consensus can be determined by a
> vote
> > of some subgroup of the overall affected population.
> >
> > Chuck Gomes
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:patrick@quad.net.au]
> > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 1:20 AM
> > To: Danny Younger
> > Cc: [ga]
> > Subject: [ga] Meaning of "Consensus"
> >
> > On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 15:46:45 -0500, Danny Younger wrote:
> > To: <ga@dnso.org>
> > Subject: [ga] Suggestions
> >
> > > My preliminary suggestions for DNSO improvement have been posted to the
> > > Public Forum.  The URL:
> > >
> http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?dnsoreview1;3AC63E2A00000030
> > >
> > > I look forward to seeing your comments posted as well.
> >
> > This describes Danny's views on "consensus".  It is very worth reading.
> >
> > I quite agree with William X. Walsh that conensus requires more that a
> > simple majority.  I do not agree that a 2/3 rds majority satisfies
> > consensus.  What is needed is substantial agreement in the sense that
> those
> > who disagree accept the proposal of offer as the best solution they can
> > reasonably expect or they don't disagree strongly enough to have a fight
> > over the issue.
> >
> > Let's say you have a country with two racial groups.  One group has twice
> as
> > many members as the other giving them a two-thirds majority.  The majority
> > decides to overwhelm the minority by taking their land, their personal
> > possessions and even their lives.   Clearly there is no consensus.
> >
> > On the other hand, we have a vote about mailing lists.  :Let's say that
> > everybody except one lone voice agrees that mailing lists are sort of a
> good
> > idea.  Some people think there should be more of less of them but, in the
> > end, everybody agrees on five.   You could say there was general agreement
> > even if everybody would have preferred a different proposal.  That's more
> > like consensus.
> >
> > But please read Danny's comments following:
> >
> > On Sat, March 31, 2001 at 8:29 PM GMT, Danny Younger wrote:
> > http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?dnsoreview1;3AC63E2A00000030
> >
> > The DNSO recommends domain name policies to the ICANN Board; these
> policies
> > purportedly are based on what has been termed a bottoms-up consensus-based
> > decision-making process.  At issue is whether these recommendations truly
> > stem from "consensus".   It is my observation that what is commonly held
> to
> > be "consensus" by the vast majority of participants in the General
> Assembly
> > and by members of the Names Council of the DNSO is not that which ICANN
> > itself defines as "consensus":
> >
> > A "Consensus Policy" is one adopted by ICANN as follows:
> > 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.
> >
> > To better illustrate this above point, let us consider a recent effort to
> > arrive at consensus, an effort that began in response to the following
> Board
> > resolution:
> >
> >    Whereas, a proposal has been presented to the Board for various
> >    revisions in the agreements among ICANN, Network Solutions, Inc.,
> >    and the United States Department of Commerce that were approved on
> >    4 November 1999 in resolutions 99.132 and 99.133 and were signed
> >    on 10 November 1999;
> >
> >    Whereas, the Board intends to consider what action, if any, to take
> >    on this proposal in its meeting to be scheduled for 2 April 2001
> >    at a time to be confirmed;
> >
> >    It is therefore
> >
> >    RESOLVED [01.22] that the Board requests all members of the Internet
> > community, including the Names Council and any of the constituencies and
> > other participants in the Domain Name Supporting Organization, to provide
> > comments on the substantive merits of the proposal no later than 31 March
> > 2001;
> >
> > The General Assembly of the DNSO initiated the consensus process with
> debate
> > on this topic and came to the following conclusions (as reported to the
> > Names Council):
> >
> > After thorough discussion, the GA has shown rough consensus in favour to
> > option A, i.e. to keep the current contract.  A straw poll conducted
> between
> > the 15 and 20 March has given the following
> > results:
> > - 24 in favour of the current contract (option A)
> > - 2 in favour of the new contract (option B)
> > - 1 neither of the above
> >
> > Subsequent to this conclusion being posted, some members of the General
> > Assembly expressed concern that the issue of the .org charter had not been
> > fully addressed in the GA statement, to which the Chair replied:
> >
> > I have spent some time in going again through the 587 messages from
> > 2001-03-08 to 2001-03-25, when I have sent the report.  I might have
> > overlooked something for the second time, but my findings are the
> following:
> >
> > - In favour of the change of the charter of .org: 0
> > - Against the change of the charter of .org: 7
> > - Against the removal of names: 5
> > - No opinion on the subject of the .org charter change: 34
> >
> > If I misunderstood somebody, can the misunderstood party point out to me
> the
> > message that I have overlooked, or misinterpreted?
> >
> > Of particular note is the Chair's observation on the overall process:
> >
> > Nowhere I said that there was consensus on changing the charter.  I only
> > stated that, should the charter be changed, there's consensus that the
> > current bona-fide registrations be kept.  In all fairness, this is what I
> > understood.  We have enough problems with the people that estimate that 24
> > to 2 is not consensus enough, you can imagine the reactions to a consensus
> > call that was more dubious.
> >
> > An analysis of the extent of participation in the above-cited debate is
> > critical to our understanding of how members of ICANN view the concept of
> > "consensus" or "rough consensus".  Comments on the .org charter topic came
> > from members of the GA voting registry, and from nine participants not on
> > that roster.  There are currently 291 registered GA voters, and with these
> > additional nine participants the total contributory GA pool therefore
> > consists of a sum total of 300 voices.
> >
> > Seven of these participants (02.33%) argued against the change of the .org
> > charter; another five such members (01.66%) argued against removal of
> names.
> > Two hundred eighty eight members (96%) chose not to participate in
> > discussions on this topic.
> >
> > Similarly, in the context of the GA position on the proposed Verisign
> > agreement it can be noted that:
> >
> > Twenty-four participants (12.5%) were in favor of the current contract
> > arrangements;
> > Two of the participants (00.66%) were against, and
> > Two hundred seventy-four (91.33%) chose not to participate in the poll.
> >
> > It is my view that the above numbers are more reflective of the phenomenon
> > known as "last man standing" than as any true measure of consensus.
> >
> > Based on the numbers alone, a casual observer might conceivably conclude
> > that over 90% of the General Assembly decided that these topics were not
> in
> > fact policy issues; that as such no comments were warranted, but this too
> is
> > not an accurate assessment.
> >
> > What is clearly true is that flawed procedures within the General Assembly
> > have created a situation wherein the expectations of the Board
> consistently
> > fail to be met.  Consider the comments of Director Auerbach:
> >
> > *      As one who does have the job of examining and passing on the output
> > of the DNSO - I expect well formed policy decisions, including analysis of
> > the competing views, and backed by procedures that give me confidence that
> > all parties have had the opportunity to fair participate.
> >
> > *      I support the determination of group opinion by the use of solid
> > procedures that include the placement of clearly articulated issues before
> a
> > clearly formed electorate who make clear votes that are counted. As it
> > stands, as a member of the ICANN Board of Directors, I am very unlikely to
> > give credence to any matter that comes out of the DNSO unless I see
> > objective data indicating that the DNSO has reached its conclusion by
> > something better than the hand waving that has to date been called
> > "consensus".
> >
> > Having only 8.6% of the participants in the GA determine that which has
> been
> > termed "consensus" (no matter what the decision) is comparable to having a
> > vote of the Board of Directors in which only two members (10.56%) show up
> to
> > cast a vote.   One would seriously doubt that anyone would consider such a
> > vote to be representative of "consensus".
> >
> > What is missing procedurally is an obligation to establish a necessary
> > quorum to legitimize the decision-making process in the General Assembly.
> > Yet even with a quorum, unless decisions are accompanied by a substantive
> > "analysis" of the kind to which Director Auerbach has referred (and which
> > are stipulated within the context of a uniform policy declaration), the
> > pronouncement of "consensus" will never be considered sufficiently
> > justifiable, nor will it withstand judicial scrutiny.
> >
> > An agreement on the requirements of "consensus" is clearly needed, as it
> is
> > most obvious that many participants in the DNSO confuse simple "majority"
> > with "consensus".
> >
> > Even members of the Names Council obfuscate the meaning of "consensus" in
> > their resolutions. by way of example, note that the "Names Council
> > resolution on the proposed revision to the ICANN/Verisign (NSI) agreement"
> > states:
> >
> > Parts B and C passing by majority and A and D by a 2/3 majority thus
> > representing a consensus policy within the definitions of the NC by-laws
> and
> > referenced in the 1999 ICANN NSI agreement.
> >
> > "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.."
> >
> > Significant by its absence is the remainder of this quote:
> >
> > "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."
> >
> > Also significant is the absence of the required "analysis" in an NC
> > presentation that was not much more than a mere compilation of the views
> of
> > the constituencies.   Most obviously, not "all" substantive submissions
> were
> > included in the supporting materials, there was no written "report", only
> > the declaration of a resolution with accompanying position papers; the
> > outreach process was not documented, and an assessment of the relative
> > weight or fervor of opinions was never prepared.
> >
> > There are no shortcuts to getting the job done right.  If we intend to
> > contribute within the ICANN process, we have an implied responsibility
> under
> > the Bylaws to guard against the possibility of judicial challenge that may
> > contest "the presence of such a consensus".
> >
> > It is our obligation therefore to provide for the requisite "document
> trail"
> > to substantiate any claims of "consensus".  This has not been done.  Only
> > one constituency actually reported on the degree of its outreach and
> > response to such outreach, the ccTLDs.  Out of 245 current ccTLDs, it was
> > reported that:
> >
> > 1. Four (4) members are in favour of "A"  (01.63%)
> > 2. Five (5) members are in favour of "B"  (02.04%)
> > A result based on replies by less than 4% of the constituency members can
> > hardly be called consensus.
> >
> > Whereas the remaining constituencies (Business, Non-Commercial, ISP, IP,
> and
> > Registrars) didn't even report on their outreach process, it is impossible
> > to properly assess their conclusions.
> > There are 180 registrars, but how many actually participated in this
> > process?  There are 66 voting members in the business constituency.  Where
> > are the records to indicate that any of them were even contacted?
> >
> > I, personally in Melbourne, re-submitted my application to join the
> Business
> > Constituency (after having faxed it in three weeks earlier). I can attest
> to
> > the fact that I was not contacted by the Business Constituency, nor by
> their
> > NC members, nor notified in any manner regarding a need to comment on the
> > Verisign agreement.
> >
> > I am not, however, disputing that outreach occurred; at issue is the
> failure
> > to document outreach and response.  What is missing is a set of publicly
> > accessible constituency mailing list archives that may be used to quantify
> > results.  The ICANN Bylaws stipulate that "The Corporation and its
> > subordinate entities shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an
> open
> > and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure
> > fairness."  Without such archives we do not have the transparency and the
> > openness that is stipulated.
> >
> > Solutions to our problems:
> >
> > 1. EDUCATION -- As the concept of "consensus" appears to be thoroughly
> alien
> > to most ICANN participants, the ICANN staff should present a workshop on
> > this topic on every occasion that ICANN convenes in session.  Guest
> > speakers, such as David Johnson and Susan Crawford, should be invited as
> > expert commentators.     Documents on the topic of the consensus process
> > should be provided as a link on the main DNSO website.
> >
> > 2. PROCESS - Those on the voting roster of the General Assembly should be
> > required to vote; failure to vote will place voting privileges at risk.  A
> > quorum should be established.
> >
> > 3. OUTREACH - As decision-making will be based on both outreach and
> > quantifiable response to such outreach, each constituency must have its
> own
> > publicly archived mailing list.
> >
> > 4. WORK-PRODUCT - That which will ultimately take the form of a uniform
> > consensus policy must be rigorously documented.
> > <end Danny Younger>
> >
> > I agree generally with these views.
> >
> > Regards
> > Patrick Corliss
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html