Re: [names] Consensus on "consensus"

[Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>]

At 08:31 AM 10/7/99 , Tamar Frankel wrote:
>Decision by consensus avoids the need of determining who the stakeholders
>are but creates the need of determining whether a consensus exists.


Well, there appears to be agreement that
defining stakeholders is a bad thing, and
instead, an arbitrary definition of consensus
is preferred by those supporting this ICANN.


>As
>pointed in one the the messages, you can protect a strongly objecting
>minority by creating some compensation for it


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.

When the minority strongly objected to the
selection of this ICANN Board without any
input from the disenfranchised participants
of the IFWP, this ICANN board said the
consensus was that they were supported.

When the minority strongly objected to closed
board meetings, this ICANN board said that the
consensus was that the board meetings should be
closed.

When the minority strongly objected to violations
of process in drafting the registrar agreement,
this ICANN board said that the consensus was that
the agreement was supported.

When the minority strongly objected to the ICANN
board making decisions on policy, before it had
replaced itself with a duly elected initial board,
this ICANN board said that the consensus was that
they should extend their term for another year.

Frankly, I can't believe that people look at
this as a feature, and not the corrupt flaw
that it is!

IMHO & FWIW,

Jay.


>(e.g., "exit"--appraisal
>rights to shareholders who object to a merger which the majority wants), or
>review for harm done to the minority through the vote. David is right as to
>the difficulty of defining stakeholders, but we can start and require a
>periodic revision. We ought to distinguish between elections and policies,
>which may require different forms of collective decision making. Finally,
>if a consensus is the way to go, then let us require a revision next time
>around.
>
>Tamar
>
>At 04:37 PM 10/6/99 -0400, you wrote:
> >At 11:59 PM 10/3/99 -0400, Jay F. wrote:
> >>
> >>Why would you prefer a subjective process
> >>to an objective one?
> >>
> >>All of this dancing appears to be an attempt
> >>to avoid defining who the stakeholders are,
> >>and defining how their interests are to be
> >>weighted in determining the direction of
> >>this new organization.
> >>
> >>Is this why are people opposed to voting?
> >>
> >Partially.  I think the notion of defining the stakeholders at the
> >outset -- before we really know what this organization is going to look
> >like and what its going to do -- is a bad one (actually, a terrible
> >one).  And there are many other reasons why one might prefer a
> >subjective, as you call it, process to an objective one, as many of the
> >other postings have pointed out.  Numerically precise voting
> >requirements achieve certainty and objectivity, but at a price -- they
> >necessarily allow the adoption of policies  that are disfavored,
> >perhaps strongly and perhaps reasonably, by some number of those
> >voting.  I don't think this is 'dancing' at all . . . :-)
> >David
> >****
> >David Post -- Temple Univ. School of Law
> >202-364-5010           215-204-4539            Postd@erols.com
> >http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost.html
> >Also, see http://www.icannwatch.org
> >****
> >
> >