[wg-d] Consensus

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

Hi all, 
I'm still here in Santiago but I am following your discussions on consensus
vs.majority rule.
Just my 2 cents on this: I see consensus as absence of any major, arguable
and reasonable dissent.
Regardless of it's size.
--heckler's(=dissident) veto is the negative way of expressing this notion) 

It is totally different from majority , or even super-majority rule.

This means that "consensus" in my eyes is an unusable concept in politics.
It can be used in engineering and research, but politics is about partisan
interests. When they are opposing, there is by definition no consensus.

The only proper political procedure is making sure that you create an
electorate where all interests can be measurably represented and then vote
on their position.
The result is a number of "parties" that will then have to compromise with
each other on the basis of the results of publicly and accountably
conducted voting. 

It means in my eyes, that WG-D has to revisit the faulty decisions the
ICANN Board made in Singapore about the DNSO's constituency structure.

P.S I wrote this before I read David Schutt's posting. He said it all.


Joop Teernstra LL.M.
http://www.idno.org