Re: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

>On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Kent Crispin wrote:
> > 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.

Kent, I suspect that when the bylaws were put together, people did the best 
they could. It isn't working. Please don't take my comments below as a 
personal attack in any way. I've gotten really tired of moderating my 
language about this because I feel very strongly, but this is not aimed at 
you or any other specific person.

On 01:33 PM 1/7/01, Karl Auerbach said:
>Yup, I oppose "consensus" because it is a synonym for "tyranny of the chair".

Karl, if you still believe that after you read the following, I'll print it 
out and eat it.

-----------------------------
Real consensus cannot be imposed - it must be accepted by all the people 
involved. So-called "consensus" doesn't care whether or not the people 
involved understand the process.

Real consensus cannot be declared - it can only be recognized by the people 
who have participated in the process. So-called "consensus" allows people 
outside the process to decide what "consensus" is.

Real consensus is not concerned with capture, because real consensus can't 
be captured, only achieved. So-called "consensus" is concerned with capture 
because it is afraid of power shifts.

Real consensus focuses on where the people involved can agree and builds 
from there. So-called "consensus" counts votes or calculates power blocks 
before attempting anything.

Real consensus is inclusive and civil. So-called "consensus" uses ridicule, 
personal attacks, red herrings, and a "rough" process to eliminate or 
discredit those who disagree with those holding the majority of power, and 
to harass those perceived as holding power.

Real consensus abjures the "power of the chair" in favor of the 
powerlessness of the clerk. So-called "consensus" elevates the power of the 
chair.

Real consensus means you're willing to not always be "right", because you 
recognize that your mind may change through the process. So-called 
"consensus" encourages positions to harden through personal adversarial 
relationships.

Real consensus means embracing relative powerlessness for yourself and ALL 
participants and at the same time empowers every participant's voice. 
So-called "consensus" stifles dissent and papers it over with empty words.

Real consensus works toward articulating explicit statements - be they 
policy statements or action directives - on which the group can agree. 
So-called "consensus" operates on hidden agendas and ambiguous or vague 
language that cloaks the intent and mystifies any potential opposition.

Real consensus has real rules of process which are agreed to by everyone 
participating, and doesn't proceed until everyone understands the rules. 
So-called "consensus" allows a governing body to create rules and 
procedures "as they see fit".

Real consensus works for full understanding by all participants. So-called 
"consensus" redefines words to disguise the process of mystification.

Real consensus requires explicit agreement or disagreement. So-called 
"consensus" allows subjective interpretation of the "mood of the group" by 
some power figure.

Real consensus works towards convergence. So-called "consensus" confuses 
that with compromise.

Real consensus aims at agreeing with your opponents. So-called "consensus" 
aims at defeating your enemies.

The white paper mandates consensus. Instead of actually trying to determine 
how to achieve real consensus, putting any resources into it, or educating 
people about consensus, the mandate was papered over by using the word 
without definition. This is a typical tactic of people who have spent too 
many years inside the Beltway. "We can comply with the "letter" of the 
mandate while ignoring the spirit of it by using the word liberally without 
defining it. If no one looks too closely, we can do what we want, and still 
claim we're following the mandate. Just look at our bylaws - we believe in 
consensus".

Hogwash.

The real root of the problem is that what is being passed off as 
"consensus" within ICANN is a travesty and a lie. Once you understand 
that,  to refer to it as consensus or accept the use of consensus to 
describe the process, you participate in and validate the lie.

Henceforth, I will refer to the DNSO process as "broken code", rather than 
as "consensus" or "consensus building". If the above writing strikes you as 
true, I invite and encourage you to do the same.

Regards,
Greg

--
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