Question: Voting AND Consensus With respect to Karl's concern that we use Voting (http://www.cavebear.com/ialc/platform.htm#voting-not-consensus) rather than consensus, how might voting be useful to the emergence of consensus?

Nominee Replies

Emerson Tiller, J.D., Ph.D. - posted on 2000-10-03 23:42:55 A petition process (with voting and concensus mechanisms) among the at large membership could lead to proposals to ICANN board. Voting could be useful to force people to reveal their true positions. Consensus is done best when everyone has honest information about everyone else's preferences. Otherwise, strategic gaming occurs and distrust emerges within the organization. The Supreme Court in its deliberations often takes an initial vote on a case before discussing the issues and assigning various judges to draft possible opinions for discussion. This information process is critical to getting eventual concensus among the justices. Similar logic could apply to ICANN and at large membership. Donald Langenberg - posted on 2000-09-24 13:50:52 We need both. My analog is the shared governance system we use in our universities, in which everybody has some role in determining important actions. When it works well (it doesn't always), it is a marvelous thing, neither completely bottom up nor top down. Action often emerges from consensus. But action there must be, and eventually some person or group (the governing board, for example) must make a decision (via vote in the case of a group) and take action. Karl Auerbach - posted on 2000-09-14 11:27:24 Let me distinguish two situations: - The ICANN board of directors the various ICANN supporting organization councils - Working groups and general assemblies. Board members and council members ought to be required to vote, on the record, on all matters big and small - this is the only way that we can have anything that approaches transparency and accountability - i.e. how can we electors know whether to re-elect or dump a director or council member if we don't know how he/she voted on an issue? In working groups we have frequently had chaos. Some degree of formality - if actually and properly used - will significantly help. But it goes further - we have heard many pronouncements from ICANN staff and from board members about overwhelming consensus on this and so. By having a formalized process, with voting, in the working groups and general assemblies we will have clear evidence whether that pronouncement is valid or simply an unsubstantiated fabrication. Lyman Chapin - posted on 2000-09-14 10:20:11 Voting is most important when one's principal concern is accountability. As Karl says, it operates in roughly an inverse relationship to trust, and is particularly important when you don't trust the person (or people) charged with deciding when consensus has been reached. Voting can also contribute to the legitimacy of an otherwise consensus-based decision making process; by explicitly recognizing and recording individual positions, it both establishes accountability in the political sense and promotes intellectually responsible individual contribution to discussions over deferential groupthink. Lawrence Lessig - posted on 2000-09-14 00:52:22 I agree with everything Karl says in this respect, except with the conclusion. Consensus does require respect, and ICANN is not a body that has yet developed enough trust to work with consensus. However, the disadvantage of simply voting is that people believe they can just vote their own interests, and let the dominant view prevail. That would be a mistake. Members of the board should strive to find a consensus about the issues they must determine; but their final result should clearly be recorded. Consensus with accountability.