[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [names] Consensus on "consensus"
At 08:41 AM 10/8/99 , Joe Sims wrote:
> This message is intended for the individual or entity named above. If you
>are not the intended
> recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to
>others; also please
> notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from
>your system. Thank you.
It looks like Jonathan invited in
some reinforcements. Welcome . . .
>with all due respect, one person's "manipulation" of consensus is another
>person's "recognition." The best test of whether ICANN is in fact a
>consensus-based organization is whether most of the Internet stakeholder
>constituencies are working within and with ICANN to help it succeed.
IMHO, that's a ridiculous claim.
I suppose you would also claim that the
Soviet Union had total support from its
citizens, because virtually all of them
voted in their national elections!
Almost every organization that I know
that is participating in ICANN, is doing
so to try and mitigate any more damage
>I would submit that the roster of ICANN participants -- by definition
>those who think that ICANN is functioning satisfactorily as a
>consensus-development body -- is rather larger than the lineup of those,
>like David, that happen to disagree with policies or procedures that the
>majority of stakeholders have created through the ICANN vehicle, and define
>that disagreement as "manipulation" of consensus.
Up is down,
Good is bad,
Black is white,
Welcome to 1984!
Maybe you missed it, but we've just been
told that the entire reason we are using
consensus instead of voting is to give
minority voices a chance to be heard.
Your response, however, is typical. If
the minority doesn't comport with ICANN's
agenda, then they are marginalized, even
when it includes legal scholars like a
David Post and Larry Lessig, or consumer
protection organizations like Ralph Nader's
CPT and the Small Business Administration.
But then again, this only proves my point.
Using the arbitrary definition of consensus
provides those in power with a tremendous
amount of discretionary power. Your comments
only confirm how this power can be abused.
> image moved David Post <Postd@erols.com>
> to file: 10/07/99 10:34 PM
>cc: (bcc: Joe Sims/JonesDay)
>Subject: Re: [names] Consensus on "consensus"
>At 01:32 PM 10/7/99 -0400, Jay F. wrote:
> >When the minority strongly objected to the
> >ICANN by-laws that had no constraints on
> >the board's power, and no representation
> >for minority interests, this ICANN board
> >said the consensus was that their by-laws
> >were supported.
>Jay, NO ONE (especially me) is disagreeing with you that the Board has
>manipulated the definition of consensus in rather egregious ways. The
>question is whether that is somehow an inherent flaw in a system based
>on consensus. I don't think it is. I think all of these examples you
>give are reasons why we should not allow the Board to determine,
>without explanation, whether or not there is consensus. I take it you
>agree about this. There's a need for a process to make sure that this
>manipulation does not happen -- but I'm not in favor of throwing the
>consensus baby out with the bathwater.
>David Post -- Temple Univ. School of Law
>202-364-5010 215-204-4539 Postd@erols.com
>Also, see http://www.icannwatch.org