Re: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 05:13:11PM -0700, Greg Burton wrote:
> 
> >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.

I don't mind.  I hope you will take the following in the same spirit:

Nothing you say below is new -- really, nothing.  The various meanings
of the term "consensus" have been discussed ad nauseum since the first
formation meetings of the DNSO, and before that during the formation of
ICANN, and before that in the IETF.  I don't mean to be rude, but
please, there have been lots of very intelligent, capable, informed, and
aware people who have been working on this for a long time, people who
know just as much about "consensus" as you or anyone else in this WG. 

ICANN was born to replace the functions Jon Postel and IANA performed,
and IANA and Jon were centered in the IETF.  The initial drafts of the
bylaws were drafted to implement Jon's vision, a vision he described in
IETF meetings at least a year before ICANN was formed.

The bottom line is that the notion of "consensus" that was used in these
documents was heavily influenced by the IETF model; there is no
reasonable doubt about that.

Your hymn to "real consensus" was very passionate, but unfortunately, it
gave no evidence understanding of the IETF process, and that is really
too bad.  In fact, the IETF has had 15 years of experience developing
its processes, it has been used in hundreds of working groups, and it
has produced thousands of documents.  These WGs do their work on the
internet using email, they are international in scope, they are
sometimes incredibly contentious.  The IETF consensus process, in other
words, is a real thing that has successfully produced real results in an
environment very close to ours.  Moreover, the IETF consensus process
handles a problem that your "real consensus" does not, and can not, deal
with: "real consensus", as you describe it, can be forever blocked by
someone who really wishes to obstruct it.  "Real consensus", that is,
doesn't handle the problem of bad actors, and it can't, by definition. 

And it is a simple fact that there are bad actors in the ICANN orbit. 
There are people who really do want ICANN to fail, period.  That's why 
"rough consensus".  "Real consensus" is not achievable, so we do the 
best we can.  It's an engineering solution, not a religious one.

Moreover, the people who drafted the bylaws were well aware of the 
problem of bad actors in consensus processes.  I'm sorry that Joe Sims 
didn't make it more explicit in the bylaws that he wasn't using 
"consensus" in your sense of "real consensus", but the simple fact is 
that he was not.  Concrete experience has demonstrated that your notion 
of "real consensus" is not adequate to the problem domain.

"Real consensus", "rough consensus", "votes" are all just different
tools for group decision making, as far as I'm concerned, with different
characteristics, and tradeoffs concerning their use.  The IETF "rough
consensus" process is notable for its success in an environment with
many of the same characteristics as ours.

In any case, I think you should study the IETF processes before tarring
it with the brush you have tarred it with, especially in light of the
fact that the IETF processes are designed to be used in the context of
email and online discussion.  In the following *you* have created an
incoherent strawman you call "so-called consensus", and then made the
case that it is incoherent.  Yes, of course your strawman is incoherent,
since you constructed it that way.  But your strawman doesn't relate at
all well to reality... 

I have interposed a few comments:

> -----------------------------
> 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 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.

How does "real consensus" deal with the issue of an affected population 
that can change dramatically over a short time span?  How does "real 
consensus" deal with the problem of a constant influx of new people who 
don't know the history of a conflict or the issues involved.  It is all 
very well to be concerned about everybody involved understanding the 
process, but ICANN has a steady flux of newcomers that must be brought 
up to speed.

> 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.

An absolute requirement ICANN faces is that it must document its 
decisions.  Hence, labels are required.  It would be nicer not to have 
to label -- I agree -- but those pesky lawyers need to see things in 
writing. 

> 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.

You say the same thing twice, once in glowing terms, and once in 
perjorative terms.  In both cases you are checking where people agree 
before proceeding.

> 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.

Don't know what you mean here -- seems like you just threw the kitchen 
sink at your strawman "consensus".  

> 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. 

Once again, this assumes a static population.

> 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.

You know, in all honesty, I don't know what you mean in the above 
sentence  ;-)

> 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.

Had they been explicit, they would not have used your notion of "real 
consensus", that is for sure.

> 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.

Sorry you feel that way.  I agree that the notion of consensus used in
the ICANN context is not as pure, in some sense, as your "real
consensus".  I do not agree with you that the notion of consensus used
in ICANN is therefore evil. 

> 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.

The above writing strikes me as a pretty egregious strawman argument, 
to tell you the truth.

-- 
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