Re: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 11:38:48AM -0700, Greg Burton wrote:

> Consensus is more than a word, it's a process and methodology. It currently 
> appears that there has been no training or education in consensus process 
> for members of the NC, for constituencies, or for WG chairs. In some 
> constituencies, this may not be required - in others it could be extremely 
> valuable. Expecting people to adequately facilitate a consensus process 
> without understanding how consensus works and what can be done as technique 
> is absurd.

As Phil states, this is easy to agree with.  However, it does not get to
the root of the problem.  The root of the problem is that despite the
mandate from the white paper and elsewhere, there are those (Milton has
expressed this view) who simply oppose the consensus model.  Karl 
Auerbach has been a much stronger opponent of a consensus model -- 
here's a quote from the wg-d record:

    Why people wave "consenus" as some sort of high and mighty thing of
    angelic goodness is beyond me. 

    I consider "consensus" to be synonymous with "not accountable" and
    suggestive of back room dealings and hidden agendas. 

    Let's dispense with new-age warm and fuzzy thinking about
    "consensus" and simply run the DNSO the way that normal community
    groups, businesses, and governments work -- with well stated rules
    of order and clear cut voting on clear cut issues. 

Quoted from http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-d/Arc00/msg00038.html.  Wg-d
spent a great deal of time discussing consensus.  I'm sure that you 
would find that whole discussion very interesting, and I encourage you 
to read it.

This opposition to consensus processes contradicts one of fundamental
premise of ICANN, and tends toward a self-fulfilling prophecy, because 
this opposition is in itself an obstruction to consensus.

However, the foundation meetings of the DNSO also involved a great deal
of discussion of consensus processes, and explicitly considered the
issue of how to deal with cases where there was deep division.  In
particular, when a single consensus position cannot be reached, the
total output is expected to include "minority reports".  This was done
in the case of wg-c, for example.  

In our current instance, we would simply note that there is a minority
opinion that considers consensus processes inappropriate, and pass that
along to the NC, which in turn would pass it on to the board, along with
any other things that we or the NC would come up with.  The board would
then make its decisions, whatever they might be, and direct the staff to
implement the changes in the bylaws.  If the board was influenced by the
minority opinions, then that would be reflected in these changes. 

Two further comments: 

First of all I think it would be a good idea for people to re-read
Article VI-B of the Bylaws, which describes the DNSO.  The concrete
instantiation of anything good that might come out of this WG will be
changes to that section of the Bylaws, and changes to the Bylaws are
constrained by a number of practical factors.  Re-reading that section 
will give you a much better feel for what those constraints are.

Second, at the most basic level we can define a consensus process as one
in which small minorities have a veto.  It is a reality that there are
some very small minorities in the ICANN orbit who have an effective
veto.  Consequently, trying to run ICANN or the DNSO through a majority
vote regime is simply out of touch with reality.  It is also a reality
that there are some numerically large groups that don't have an
effective veto, and whose influence must be manifested through the 
marketplace of ideas, and the real marketplace.  These realities are 
heavy constraints on what we can accomplish.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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