Re: [ICANN-EU] Re: European At Large Council

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

On 2000-09-01 01:46:03 +0200, Griffini Giorgio wrote:

> I often hear such consideration but I still think it is wrong or
> at almost incomplete because you cannot know how many people
> heard your call.

You can measure this if you distribute the call at appropriate
places.  Actually, I'm wondering if we can get ICANN into
distributing an announcement of the forum through one of their
regular @large mailings.

> By doing this way you will not measure 'positive' consensus but
> you will just have an index of 'non-dissenting' opinion on an
> unknown total population.

That'll always be the case, since the @large membership is a rather
obscure sample from "the Internet At Large".  Face it: We are not
representative, so the only thing we can do is make sure that
well-argued dissenting opinions can be heared, even though they may
only be articulated by a single individual.

> This way you will include in the count (improperly in my view)
> also uninterested or unaware parties and it is difficult for me
> to call it 'consensus'. 

That's precisely why it's called "rough consensus": You don't look
for a solution and result everyone likes (because that's
impossible), but for one everyone can live with.

Also, please note that we are talking about a group which will be
growing considerably in the coming years, with newcomers soon being
a majority.  Now, if you work on the base of majority votes, the
temptation will be large to throw away old decisions, and start new
votes and old debates.  If, on the other hand, you have a model in
which rough consensus is required and good reasons and new ideas are
considered to be a requirement for re-opening a debate, you'll gain
quite a bit of stability.

For an example of successful application of this model, please refer
to this list's archives: It's precisely what Andrew McLaughlin did
when some members raised questions about the NomCom and member
nomination process.

> I'm sure that the way you talk about works quite nicely and it is
> often used to shorten up discussions where there is an high
> membership count but with few active partecipants usually when
> some of this few one have diverging opinions.

That's precisely the structure I'd expect from the @large
membership.  It's even the structure we can observe on this list.

> I still prefer the 'positive' consensus method (raising hand or
> say an explicit "Yes,I agree" on a list) because it is more
> transparent and safe and also I have also in other places seen
> 'non-dissenting opinion' method applied in a completely unfair
> manner.

There are safeguards which can be applied, for instance by requiring
documentation of the dissenting opinions.

> I think that differences about sensibility on social impact of
> ICANN decisions 

Possible, though I don't really see such a large social impact right
now.  But then again, that may be part of the difference. ,-)

> and national pride concerns and their side-effects

You mean like in "France cuts off Internet in favor of Minitel-like
system since accents aren't permitted in domain names. Germany split
over the question whether to abandon Umlauts or to join.  Luxembourg
sees trans-border retail banking (aka tax evasion) endangered, and
calls for hold."? ;-)

Obviously, ICANN and possible directors should know if and when
governments or nations are stepped over their toes, and start doing
sabotage.  However, the idea that national pride should be
considered a valid argument in technical debates heavily hurts in my
stomach.

But maybe you could elaborate what precisely you were thinking about?

> will be the most noticeable ones.

> I agree, but this is the kind of representativeness you may find
> here in @large elections. I'm not arguing if it is wrong or not
> in itself but if it is more or less corect to act on a behalf of
> a different one in this such bootstrap process When this
> bootstrap is done the representativity issue will be a whole
> another different story.

As Jeannette pointed out, tools may quite well be available which
permit a more transparent and open bootstrapping process.  We should
use them.

>> The best way to attack the representativity argument is, in my
>> humble opinion, to make the process open for all, and try to
>> record the differing opinions. But I wrote that before, you
>> remember?

> Yes but in this uncoordinated effort to build up a body how can
> we be sure we will not miss some opinions? 

By monitoring and collecting the opinions mentioned?  By summarizing
and asking for resubmission of omitted opinions?

> When we will have a 'sort of ' initial body we can charter it to
> measure representativeness by 'positive' consensus gained by open
> access and public readability.

You know, reading the stuff others write doesn't give me the
possibility to optimally argue for my own opinion.  I'd have to
submit it to a member of a closed body, hope that it's forwarded,
and whatnot.  No, thanks.

-- 
Thomas Roessler                         <roessler@does-not-exist.org>