Re: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem

["Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@register.com>]

Respectfully I would submit that no matter which model you use for comingto
final conclusion, consensus must help you get there.  Whether or not it is used
as the final arbiter of a decision is almost secondary.  If voters do not
consent to putting something up for a vote there is no legitimate vote.
Sincerely,

Chris McElroy wrote:

> It seems to me that in order to properly discuss this, the first question
> should be; To Consensus or not to Concensus? That is the first question. I
> see others here that have stated they do not believe this is this answer,
> yet others who post as if it has already been decided that how to build a
> consensus is what we should be discussing.
>
> I suggest we start with whether or not to use this type of process before
> discussing the how to.
>
> Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kent Crispin" <kent@songbird.com>
> To: "wg Review list" <wg-review@dnso.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 7:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem
>
> > 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
> >
>
> --
> 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

Emanuel.exe