Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #665
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Sunday, August 12 2001           Volume 01 : Number 665

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 10:48:26 -0400
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition? 

>If the two largest gTLD registrars (that between them register over 70% of 
>all such domains) adopt an auto-NACK policy, and the remaining 80 other 
>registrars vote to adopt an auto-ACK policy, would you consider 
>this to be a 
>legitimate consensus for auto-ACK?  

Nobody has asked the domain holders so the proxess has not yet begun.

Russ Smith

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 08:01:56 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

- --------------3407D91AEC03C4DCA253262A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Roberto,
>
> Forgive me for saying so, but your call for a definition of "consensus" is
> IMHO some kind of diversionary tactic.  Why, and to what end...?

Must disagree with our stalwart contributor Sotiris.  We need a decent
definition of "consensus" because that is the basis upon which ICANN
is supposed to operate.  The original "run for an Individual's Constituency"
(don't have a cite at the moment) foundered because the trademark lawyers
weighed in saying that no consensus had been shown. (More below.)

> In its last
> published consensus-based document the WG-Review suggested the definition of
> "consensus" as a 2/3 majority of vote participants.  Did you not read it?
> Must we have the same discussion all over again?  On the other hand, we have
> the very interesting declaration of what "consensus" means in ICANN terms:
>
> >From a July 8, 1999, ICANN correspondence to The Honorable Thomas J. Bliley,
> Jr. Chairman of The House Committee on Commerce, from Esther Dyson on behalf
> of ICANN:
>
> "Because there were at the time of ICANN’s formation and remain today critics
> of either its bylaws or particular actions taken since its creation, it is
> useful to define what we mean when
> we use the word “consensus.” It obviously does not mean “unanimous,” nor is it
> intended to
> reflect some precise counting of heads pro or con on a particular subject,
> since in this
> environment that is simply not possible. What it does mean is that, on any
> particular issue,
> proposed policies are generated from public input and published to the world
> at large, comments
> are received and publicly discussed, and an attempt is made, from the entirety
> of that process, to articulate the consensus position as best it can be
> perceived.

This is reality based.  The Best Practices process will provide exactly this.
Indeed, there is really no other option but to adopt that practice or, of
course, an amended version thereof -- what is in the course of being
posted is a "first shot" that will very likely be improved with a bit of use.

> "Obviously, to the extent any individual or group undertakes to articulate a
> consensus of
> the overall community, its work is useful only to the extent it accurately
> reflects the consensus. ICANN is no exception to this rule. Unfortunately,
> there is no litmus test that can objectively render a judgment as to whether
> this standard has been met in any particular
> situation.

There is not, and will not be, any definitive litmus test that will prove to all
that a consensus exists, since the matter is so nebulous.  However, there
will shortly be a "test" that will at least establish a necessary, but possibly
not sufficient, condition for claiming a consensus, and that is that an ISSUE
was suggested, and then -- with or without the insertion of optional POLLS
(but preferably with) -- that ISSUE became a PROPOSAL that became
a MOTION which led to a VOTE from which there was a REPORT.  Part I
of the Best Practices procedure was previously posted, and publication
of Part II -- Flow Chart, is imminent. A third part that sets out time lines
will then follow, and, taken as a whole, the procedure will provide as good
of a "paper trail" demonstrating (or not) the existence of a consensus that
one can ever get from the Internet environment.  Opportunity is provided
for everyone either to express their positions on various ISSUES or remain
silent -- an occurrence that may at least be taken to mean that the "silent
majority" has no violent objection to what is being proposed.

Once that course has been run, there remains the job of judging whether
or not a consensus (either negative or positive on the MOTION) has been
established.  This would not be a matter of raw numbers, but rather one
of analyzing the DISCUSSIONS and DEBATES, to seek out positions and
arguments on which, for example, no one has countered or objected.
The salutory process of "tweaking" a PROPOSAL, or setting out some
alternative, would aid in an "outreach" for consensus as has been suggested
elsewhere, whereby some final PROPOSAL on which essentially universal
agreement is shown might be developed that, through the final VOTE,
could demonstrate consensus as well as that nebulous notion could ever
be demonstrated.

> Perhaps the best test is whether the community at large is
> comfortable with the
> process and the results, and the best gauge of that is probably the level of
> continuing participation in the process, and voluntary compliance with the
> policies produced by that process. "This is, necessarily, a more ambiguous
> standard than counting votes or some other
> objectively measurable criteria, and it inevitably means less efficient, more
> messy, less linear
> movement, as the perceived community consensus shifts and adapts to change, or
> as perceptions
> of that consensus themselves are refined or change. Such a process is easily
> subject to criticism and attack by those not satisfied with the process or the
> results; after all,
> in the absence of some objective determination, it is impossible to
> definitively refute claims that the consensus has been misread, and loud noise
> can sometimes be mistaken for broad support for any proposition advanced.

All of this seems to be appropriate comment.  One thing that the Best Practices
provides, however, is a reasonably linear procedure -- top to bottom. A part
of that is the occurrence of "branching" -- two or more PROPOSALS may
have been established on a single issue, but the "track" of each will be easy
to follow: "Proposition 1 = yadda yadda; Proposition 2 = different yadda
yadda."  The same as to MOTIONS. The mechanics of the procedure, although
quite simple, will nevertheless impart a feeling of participating in something
that is real, and not just this or that person or clique beating an individual
drum.

The procedure is also well adapted to the expression of disagreement. As we
all know, the General Assembly does not dictate any policy, although it has
the opportunity both to propose policies and to criticize those that ICANN
has adopted.  The "open, bottoms up" mode under which ICANN is supposed
to be operated provides a perfect window not for what has been the practice so
far: various ones of us post messages that complain about this or that -- all of
which ICANN has the habit of treating as just so much chaff -- but instead
for all sorts of MOTIONS, one type of which could well be a MOTION OF
OPPOSITION. (Or we could get more explicit and call it a MOTION OF
CONDEMNATION.) If the General Assembly had, through use of the Best
Practices procedure, demonstrated a vigorous opposition to some ICANN
practice, then that event would be much more likely to garner attention --
not only from ICANN (one would hope) but from the DofC and indeed
Congress.  How better to document that ICANN is running amok with its
own, self-conceived agenda? And how many MOTIONS OF OPPOSITION
that show real agreement within the GA would it take before someone
takes notice? Not too many, methinks.

>
> "Certainly there are those who do not accept that particular ICANN policies or
> decisions to
> date accurately reflect the community consensus, and there are some who are
> not comfortable
> with the process that has been employed to determine the community consensus.
> No doubt
> reasonable people can differ on both policy and process, and certainly there
> are many opinions
> about practically everything on which ICANN has acted. Still, it appears that
> the process has
> actually worked remarkably well considering the difficulty of the task, as
> measured by the fact that most of the global Internet communities continue to
> participate in this consensus development process.’

Now this, of course, is arrant nonsense. The global Internet community
participates because for far too long ICANN (and NSI/Verisign) has been
the only game in town. And this "consensus development process" has been
a joke. The Best Practices procedure can now put ICANN into a survival
mode: it either follows the well established wishes of the Internet Community
as exhibited by the Best Practices procedure or it goes out of business.

Bill Lovell

- --------------3407D91AEC03C4DCA253262A
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
&nbsp;
<br>Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Roberto,
<p>Forgive me for saying so, but your call for a definition of "consensus"
is
<br>IMHO some kind of diversionary tactic.&nbsp; Why, and to what end...?</blockquote>
Must disagree with our stalwart contributor Sotiris.&nbsp; We need a decent
<br>definition of "consensus" because that is the basis upon which ICANN
<br>is supposed to operate.&nbsp; The original "run for an Individual's
Constituency"
<br>(don't have a cite at the moment) foundered because the trademark lawyers
<br>weighed in saying that no consensus had been shown. (More below.)
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>In its last
<br>published consensus-based document the WG-Review suggested the definition
of
<br>"consensus" as a 2/3 majority of vote participants.&nbsp; Did you not
read it?
<br>Must we have the same discussion all over again?&nbsp; On the other
hand, we have
<br>the very interesting declaration of what "consensus" means in ICANN
terms:
<p>>From a July 8, 1999, ICANN correspondence to The Honorable Thomas J.
Bliley,
<br>Jr. Chairman of The House Committee on Commerce, from Esther Dyson
on behalf
<br>of ICANN:
<p>"Because there were at the time of ICANN’s formation and remain today
critics
<br>of either its bylaws or particular actions taken since its creation,
it is
<br>useful to define what we mean when
<br>we use the word “consensus.” It obviously does not mean “unanimous,”
nor is it
<br>intended to
<br>reflect some precise counting of heads pro or con on a particular subject,
<br>since in this
<br>environment that is simply not possible. What it does mean is that,
on any
<br>particular issue,
<br>proposed policies are generated from public input and published to
the world
<br>at large, comments
<br>are received and publicly discussed, and an attempt is made, from the
entirety
<br>of that process, to articulate the consensus position as best it can
be
<br>perceived.</blockquote>
This is reality based.&nbsp; The Best Practices process will provide exactly
this.
<br>Indeed, there is really no other option but to adopt that practice
or, of
<br>course, an amended version thereof -- what is in the course of being
<br>posted is a "first shot" that will very likely be improved with a bit
of use.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>"Obviously, to the extent any individual or group
undertakes to articulate a
<br>consensus of
<br>the overall community, its work is useful only to the extent it accurately
<br>reflects the consensus. ICANN is no exception to this rule. Unfortunately,
<br>there is no litmus test that can objectively render a judgment as to
whether
<br>this standard has been met in any particular
<br>situation.</blockquote>
There is not, and will not be, any definitive litmus test that will prove
to all
<br>that a consensus exists, since the matter is so nebulous.&nbsp; However,
there
<br>will shortly be a "test" that will at least establish a necessary,
but possibly
<br>not sufficient, condition for claiming a consensus, and that is that
an <font size=-1>ISSUE</font>
<br>was suggested, and then -- with or without the insertion of optional
<font size=-1>POLLS</font>
<br>(but preferably with) -- that <font size=-1>ISSUE</font> became a <font size=-1>PROPOSAL</font>
that became
<br>a <font size=-1>MOTION</font> which led to a <font size=-1>VOTE</font>
from which there was a <font size=-1>REPORT</font>.&nbsp; Part I
<br>of the Best Practices procedure was previously posted, and publication
<br>of Part II -- Flow Chart, is imminent. A third part that sets out time
lines
<br>will then follow, and, taken as a whole, the procedure will provide
as good
<br>of a "paper trail" demonstrating (or not) the existence of a consensus
that
<br>one can ever get from the Internet environment.&nbsp; Opportunity is
provided
<br>for everyone either to express their positions on various <font size=-1>ISSUES</font>
or remain
<br>silent -- an occurrence that may at least be taken to mean that the
"silent
<br>majority" has no violent objection to what is being proposed.
<p>Once that course has been run, there remains the job of judging whether
<br>or not a consensus (either negative or positive on the <font size=-1>MOTION</font>)
has been
<br>established.&nbsp; This would not be a matter of raw numbers, but rather
one
<br>of analyzing the <font size=-1>DISCUSSIONS</font> and <font size=-1>DEBATES,
to </font>seek out positions and
<br>arguments on which, for example, no one has countered or objected.
<br>The salutory process of "tweaking" a PROPOSAL, or setting out some
<br>alternative, would aid in an "outreach" for consensus as has been suggested
<br>elsewhere, whereby some final <font size=-1>PROPOSAL</font> on which
essentially universal
<br>agreement is shown might be developed that, through the final <font size=-1>VOTE</font>,
<br>could demonstrate consensus as well as that nebulous notion could ever
<br>be demonstrated.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Perhaps the best test is whether the community at
large is
<br>comfortable with the
<br>process and the results, and the best gauge of that is probably the
level of
<br>continuing participation in the process, and voluntary compliance with
the
<br>policies produced by that process. "This is, necessarily, a more ambiguous
<br>standard than counting votes or some other
<br>objectively measurable criteria, and it inevitably means less efficient,
more
<br>messy, less linear
<br>movement, as the perceived community consensus shifts and adapts to
change, or
<br>as perceptions
<br>of that consensus themselves are refined or change. Such a process
is easily
<br>subject to criticism and attack by those not satisfied with the process
or the
<br>results; after all,
<br>in the absence of some objective determination, it is impossible to
<br>definitively refute claims that the consensus has been misread, and
loud noise
<br>can sometimes be mistaken for broad support for any proposition advanced.</blockquote>
All of this seems to be appropriate comment.&nbsp; One thing that the Best
Practices
<br>provides, however, is a reasonably linear procedure -- top to bottom.
A part
<br>of that is the occurrence of "branching" -- two or more <font size=-1>PROPOSALS</font>
may
<br>have been established on a single issue, but the "track" of each will
be easy
<br>to follow: "Proposition 1 = yadda yadda; Proposition 2 = different
yadda
<br>yadda."&nbsp; The same as to <font size=-1>MOTIONS</font>. The mechanics
of the procedure, although
<br>quite simple, will nevertheless impart a feeling of participating in
something
<br>that is <i>real</i>, and not just this or that person or clique beating
an individual drum.
<p>The procedure is also well adapted to the expression of disagreement.
As we
<br>all know, the General Assembly does not dictate any policy, although
it has
<br>the opportunity both to propose policies and to criticize those that
ICANN
<br>has adopted.&nbsp; The "open, bottoms up" mode under which ICANN is
supposed
<br>to be operated provides a perfect window not for what has been the
practice so
<br>far: various ones of us post messages that complain about this or that
- -- all of
<br>which ICANN has the habit of treating as just so much chaff -- but
instead
<br>for all sorts of <font size=-1>MOTIONS,</font> one type of which could
well be a <font size=-1>MOTION OF</font>
<br><font size=-1>OPPOSITION</font>. (Or we could get more explicit and
call it a <font size=-1>MOTION OF</font>
<br><font size=-1>CONDEMNATION</font>.) If the General Assembly had, through
use of the Best
<br>Practices procedure, demonstrated a vigorous opposition to some ICANN
<br>practice, then that event would be much more likely to garner attention
- --
<br>not only from ICANN (one would hope) but from the DofC and indeed
<br>Congress.&nbsp; How better to document that ICANN is running amok with
its
<br>own, self-conceived agenda? And how many <font size=-1>MOTIONS OF OPPOSITION</font>
<br>that show real agreement within the GA would it take before someone
<br>takes notice? Not too many, methinks.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<br>"Certainly there are those who do not accept that particular ICANN
policies or
<br>decisions to
<br>date accurately reflect the community consensus, and there are some
who are
<br>not comfortable
<br>with the process that has been employed to determine the community
consensus.
<br>No doubt
<br>reasonable people can differ on both policy and process, and certainly
there
<br>are many opinions
<br>about practically everything on which ICANN has acted. Still, it appears
that
<br>the process has
<br>actually worked remarkably well considering the difficulty of the task,
as
<br>measured by the fact that most of the global Internet communities continue
to
<br>participate in this consensus development process.’</blockquote>
Now this, of course, is arrant nonsense. The global Internet community
<br>participates because for far too long ICANN (and NSI/Verisign) has
been
<br>the only game in town. And this "consensus development process" has
been
<br>a joke. The Best Practices procedure can now put ICANN into a survival
<br>mode: it either follows the well established wishes of the Internet
Community
<br>as exhibited by the Best Practices procedure or it goes out of business.
<p>Bill Lovell</html>

- --------------3407D91AEC03C4DCA253262A--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 11:07:31 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

Take a look at
http://www.cpn.org/cpn/sections/tools/techniques/consensus_democracy.htm
l

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Elisabeth Porteneuve
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 10:28 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

Let me recall that the WG-D, which has been working on methodology for
policy reports, have been producing a substancial set of usefull
guidelines for Working Groups, including considerations about consensus.

* 09 Apr 2001, Report and Recommendation from WG-D presented to the NC 
  http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010409.NCwgd-report.html 
* 31 Jan 2001, Report and Recommendation from WG-D (includes 
  "Processes and Procedures for the Working Groups of ICANN's 
  Domain Name Supporting Organization") 
  http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-d/Arc02/msg00000.html 
* 13 Sep 1999, Methodology for ICANN consensus-based reports, input to
WG-D 
  http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990913.Methodology-for-reports.html 

Elisabeth Porteneuve
- --

( rest of thread 'snipped' )

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 08:56:14 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

Then how about this;
majority 		> 51%
super majority 	> 66%
consensus		> 90%

The point is that, given a large group of people, counting noses is the only
thing that works. Anything less will have its legitimacy challenged at every
turn and the result of that will be grid-lock. That's the paractical issue.
On the legal front, we must be able to present evidenciary proof of every
decision. When Congress asks DOC for facts, the current consensus statements
are weak, rightly so. From a historical perspective, any decision reached by
a vague "consensus" definition will be indefensible and unusable in any
legal context. Basically, we may as well not say anything. The prime example
is the output of WG-A.

BTW Chuck, I actually agree with everything you say, in theory. I just
disagree, that it will be sufficient for this body to move forward with that
definition, in any practical context. In small committees, of experts, it is
easy to determine consensus. I do it at every design meeting. Even within
small groups of polecat^H^H^H^Hiticians, in those cases, I usually document
it as Unanimous Consent, with dissenting opinions. In larger groups, where
communications is usually the main problem, with individual lack of
preparation running a close second, voting/polling is the only way to weed
out the weak and ill-prepared articles and motions, in any sort of
reasonable time-frame.

We must design the process to fit the practical requirements.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 5:14 AM
> To: 'Roeland Meyer'; 'Sotiris Sotiropoulos'; ga
> Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition?
> 
> 
> A '2/3 majority vote of participants' in my opinion is an 
> extremely weak
> definition of consensus.  It could serve as a guide during efforts to
> achieve consensus in the same way that a straw poll would.  
> It seems to me
> that votes or straw polls are good means of quantifying the degree of
> agreement/disagreement among 'participants' and that in turn 
> can be used as
> a step forward.  It would still be important though to try to modify
> proposals in an effort to try to reach a solution that better 
> satisfies the
> 1/3 opposed while still being acceptable to the 2/3 in favor. 
>  And possibly
> more importantly, the issue of representativeness of the 
> overall Internet
> community that is impacted by the issue at stake needs to be 
> dealt with.
> Consensus of some small subset of the affected community 
> should never be
> generalized to mean consensus of the larger community.  At a 
> bare minimum
> there should be a documented outreach to the broader community and
> documented results of that outreach.  If in the end, the 
> outreach efforts
> are deemed to be reasonable and members of the broader community are
> non-responsive, then it may be acceptable to conclude that 
> they are not
> interested and move forward with a consensus based on those who are
> interested.
> 
> The problem with the process I am talking about is that is a 
> very difficult
> process.  It takes lots of time and effort. Most of us want a 
> simple formula
> and I contend that there is not a simple formula.  I firmly 
> believe that the
> complexity and difficulty of the consensus process is a fact 
> of life if we
> truly want a bottoms-up consensus process.  Anything less 
> rigorous will be a
> sham.
> 
> Finally, one of the underlying assumptions that seems to be 
> prevalent is
> that we should always be able to come to a consensus 
> position.  It is not
> only possible but also reasonable that on many issues it will not be
> possible to reach a community consensus.  That is perfectly 
> okay.  In those
> cases we should simply let market forces work as freely as 
> possible and
> allow diversity so that consumers can choose what best meets 
> their needs and
> interests.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 4:05 PM
> To: 'Sotiris Sotiropoulos'; ga
> Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition?
> 
> 
> I might point out that such a soft definition of consensus 
> carries very
> little weight in congress.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 2:54 PM
> > To: ga
> > Subject: [ga] Consensus... Definition?
> > 
> > 
> > Roberto,
> > 
> > Forgive me for saying so, but your call for a definition of 
> > "consensus" is
> > IMHO some kind of diversionary tactic.  Why, and to what 
> > end...?  In its last
> > published consensus-based document the WG-Review suggested 
> > the definition of
> > "consensus" as a 2/3 majority of vote participants.  Did you 
> > not read it? 
> > Must we have the same discussion all over again?  On the 
> > other hand, we have
> > the very interesting declaration of what "consensus" means in 
> > ICANN terms:
> > 
> > >From a July 8, 1999, ICANN correspondence to The Honorable 
> > Thomas J. Bliley,
> > Jr. Chairman of The House Committee on Commerce, from Esther 
> > Dyson on behalf
> > of ICANN:
> > 
> > "Because there were at the time of ICANN's formation and 
> > remain today critics
> > of either its bylaws or particular actions taken since its 
> > creation, it is
> > useful to define what we mean when
> > we use the word "consensus." It obviously does not mean 
> > "unanimous," nor is it
> > intended to
> > reflect some precise counting of heads pro or con on a 
> > particular subject,
> > since in this
> > environment that is simply not possible. What it does mean is 
> > that, on any
> > particular issue,
> > proposed policies are generated from public input and 
> > published to the world
> > at large, comments
> > are received and publicly discussed, and an attempt is made, 
> > from the entirety
> > of that process, to articulate the consensus position as best 
> > it can be
> > perceived.
> > 
> > "Obviously, to the extent any individual or group undertakes 
> > to articulate a
> > consensus of
> > the overall community, its work is useful only to the extent 
> > it accurately
> > reflects the consensus. ICANN is no exception to this rule. 
> > Unfortunately,
> > there is no litmus test that can objectively render a 
> > judgment as to whether
> > this standard has been met in any particular
> > situation. Perhaps the best test is whether the community 
> at large is
> > comfortable with the
> > process and the results, and the best gauge of that is 
> > probably the level of
> > continuing participation in the process, and voluntary 
> > compliance with the
> > policies produced by that process. "This is, necessarily, a 
> > more ambiguous
> > standard than counting votes or some other
> > objectively measurable criteria, and it inevitably means less 
> > efficient, more
> > messy, less linear
> > movement, as the perceived community consensus shifts and 
> > adapts to change, or
> > as perceptions
> > of that consensus themselves are refined or change. Such a 
> > process is easily
> > subject to criticism and attack by those not satisfied with 
> > the process or the
> > results; after all,
> > in the absence of some objective determination, it is impossible to
> > definitively refute claims that the consensus has been 
> > misread, and loud noise
> > can sometimes be mistaken for broad support for any 
> > proposition advanced.
> > 
> > "Certainly there are those who do not accept that particular 
> > ICANN policies or
> > decisions to
> > date accurately reflect the community consensus, and there 
> > are some who are
> > not comfortable
> > with the process that has been employed to determine the 
> > community consensus.
> > No doubt
> > reasonable people can differ on both policy and process, and 
> > certainly there
> > are many opinions
> > about practically everything on which ICANN has acted. Still, 
> > it appears that
> > the process has
> > actually worked remarkably well considering the difficulty of 
> > the task, as
> > measured by the fact that most of the global Internet 
> > communities continue to
> > participate in this consensus development process.'
> > 
> > --
> > So what's the deal with this call for "consensus" definition 
> > Roberto?  How
> > about a domain name definition instead?  It would go a lot 
> > further in cleaning
> > up the mess created by the ambiguous wordslingers who crafted 
> > the entire
> > notion of web-policy by fiat ably branded with the obscure 
> > term: "consensus". 
> > This whole topic stinks! 
> > 
> > Sincerely,
> > 
> > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 09:04:27 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

A valuable essay.  The link itself does not work, or did
not for me, but by doing a little "directory walking," i.e.,
I put in http://www.cpn.org/cpn/sections/tools/ and then
walked on through the links shown, I was able to access
the page.

Bill Lovell

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Take a look at
> http://www.cpn.org/cpn/sections/tools/techniques/consensus_democracy.htm
> l
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Elisabeth Porteneuve
> Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 10:28 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition?
>
> Let me recall that the WG-D, which has been working on methodology for
> policy reports, have been producing a substancial set of usefull
> guidelines for Working Groups, including considerations about consensus.
>
> * 09 Apr 2001, Report and Recommendation from WG-D presented to the NC
>   http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010409.NCwgd-report.html
> * 31 Jan 2001, Report and Recommendation from WG-D (includes
>   "Processes and Procedures for the Working Groups of ICANN's
>   Domain Name Supporting Organization")
>   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-d/Arc02/msg00000.html
> * 13 Sep 1999, Methodology for ICANN consensus-based reports, input to
> WG-D
>   http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990913.Methodology-for-reports.html
>
> Elisabeth Porteneuve
> --
>
> ( rest of thread 'snipped' )
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
Any terms above that are not familiar to the reader may
possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found at:
http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 12:02:27 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re:  Consensus... Definition? 

Perhaps Sotiris is right...

How many times have we discussed the topic of consensus already?  Every time 
that we have serious issues on our plate... the need to restructure ICANN 
into a more representative body, the need to deal with registrar transfer 
policies that are holding domain owners hostage, the need to address problems 
with the SRS... on each such occasion, our Names Council representatives and 
some others prefer to talk instead about "consensus".   To paraphrase a 
frequent contributor to this list, "This is a rathole."  We are being 
victimized by diversionary tactics.

Rather than allowing the Review WG to continue its work and "officially" 
settle the issue, our Council decided to terminate the WG and convene a Task 
Force to determine "a practical definition" of consensus.  The ball is in 
their court now.  Let them do their own work (as they were perfectly willing 
to terminate our work in this area).  If you must continue conversations on 
this topic, why not send your comments to the Chair of the Review Task Force? 
   His email address is [email-masked]

Maybe one day he'll actually open up his "web-based forum" and allow you all 
to participate.  In the meantime, as long as there are those with the power 
to thwart your declarations of consensus, you will have accomplished nothing 
with all your sophistry.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 09:21:39 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Consensus [Was: Re: [ga] Posting limits for Board candidates}

- --------------CBEF7F98C796F93BA389E3EC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Here is an example of consensus, it would seem.  Several people
suggested
adoption of this policy, Danny concurred, and after two days no other
words
have been heard.  I've seen no objections, either as to the merits or
the usual
complaint that the Chair lacks the authority to make such a change in
policy,
that no vote has been taken, etc., etc. The appropriateness of some
policies
are so self evident that none of the above, including the formal process
set
out in the Best Practices procedure, are required, and there can be no
target
of "2/3" or anything like that by which consensus could be measured,
since
no one has voted, or even said anything.  Silence is itself a
communication,
and, although on many issues the matter of whether a consensus exists
will
have to be evaluated from a full run of the Best Practices procedure, in
other
cases, like this one, we find consensus in the same way that Justice
Whizzer
White finds obscenity: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

Bill Lovell

[email-masked] wrote:

> Dear members,
>
> Thank you for suggesting to remove the posting limits for our ICANN
> Board
> candidates.
>
> I concur; this is a reasonable action to take at this time.
>
> Best wishes to all our candidates.

- --
Any terms above that are not familiar to the reader may
possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found at:
http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --------------CBEF7F98C796F93BA389E3EC
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Here is an example of consensus, it would seem.&nbsp; Several people suggested
<br>adoption of this policy, Danny concurred, and after two days no other
words
<br>have been heard.&nbsp; I've seen no objections, either as to the merits
or the usual
<br>complaint that the Chair lacks the authority to make such a change
in policy,
<br>that no vote has been taken, etc., etc. The appropriateness of some
policies
<br>are so self evident that none of the above, including the formal process
set
<br>out in the Best Practices procedure, are required, and there can be
no target
<br>of "2/3" or anything like that by which consensus could be measured,
since
<br>no one has voted, or even said anything.&nbsp; Silence is itself a
communication,
<br>and, although on many issues the matter of whether a consensus exists
will
<br>have to be evaluated from a full run of the Best Practices procedure,
in other
<br>cases, like this one, we find consensus in the same way that Justice
Whizzer
<br>White finds obscenity: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see
it."
<p>Bill Lovell
<br>&nbsp;
<p>[email-masked] wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><font face="arial,helvetica"><font size=+0>Dear members,</font></font>
<p><font face="arial,helvetica"><font size=+0>Thank you for suggesting
to remove the posting limits for our ICANN Board</font></font>
<br><font face="arial,helvetica"><font size=+0>candidates.</font></font>
<p><font face="arial,helvetica"><font size=+0>I concur; this is a reasonable
action to take at this time.</font></font>
<p><font face="arial,helvetica"><font size=+0>Best wishes to all our candidates.</font></font></blockquote>

<p>--
<br>Any terms above that are not familiar to the reader may
<br>possibly be explained at:
<br>"WHAT IS": <A HREF="http://whatis.techtarget.com/">http://whatis.techtarget.com/</A>
<br>GLOSSARY: <A HREF="http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm">http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm</A>
<br>Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
<br>mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found at:
<br><A HREF="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</A>
<br>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------CBEF7F98C796F93BA389E3EC--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 12:32:19 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

Sorry, the .html got left out

http://www.cpn.org/cpn/sections/tools/techniques/consensus_democracy.htm
l

And your link ending on ...tools is a good place to start.

peter

- -----Original Message-----
From: William S. Lovell [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 12:04 PM
To: Peter de Blanc
Cc: [email-masked]; 'Elisabeth Porteneuve'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

A valuable essay.  The link itself does not work, or did
not for me, but by doing a little "directory walking," i.e.,
I put in http://www.cpn.org/cpn/sections/tools/ and then
walked on through the links shown, I was able to access
the page.

Bill Lovell

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Take a look at 
> http://www.cpn.org/cpn/sections/tools/techniques/consensus_democracy.h
> tm
> l
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of 
> Elisabeth Porteneuve
> Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 10:28 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition?
>
> Let me recall that the WG-D, which has been working on methodology for

> policy reports, have been producing a substancial set of usefull 
> guidelines for Working Groups, including considerations about 
> consensus.
>
> * 09 Apr 2001, Report and Recommendation from WG-D presented to the NC
>   http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010409.NCwgd-report.html
> * 31 Jan 2001, Report and Recommendation from WG-D (includes
>   "Processes and Procedures for the Working Groups of ICANN's
>   Domain Name Supporting Organization")
>   http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-d/Arc02/msg00000.html
> * 13 Sep 1999, Methodology for ICANN consensus-based reports, input to

> WG-D
>   http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990913.Methodology-for-reports.html
>
> Elisabeth Porteneuve
> --
>
> ( rest of thread 'snipped' )
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
Any terms above that are not familiar to the reader may possibly be
explained at: "WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
Archives of posted emails on various General Assembly
mailing lists and other ICANN information can be found at:
http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #665
************************