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

[lutz@iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke)]

* Griffini Giorgio wrote:
>Lutz wrote:
>> I've worked with both methods. A larger list requires the default 'Yes,
>> I commit', despite a small list with a limited number of members. Both
>> methods work fine, but the latter one provides a stronger consensus.

>Would you mean that the result depends on the way we measure it?

In the net: Yes. Most people are quite on most cases. If they are urged to
become active, they express there minor objections. So if you set the
default to 'No, I oppose', you get more responses and objections to deal
with. If you come to an end, the compromise is not as rough as on the other
default.

>Tha main problem is that 'rough consensus' is more than majority and
>generally seen as a 2/3 of agreements. Using the 'non dissenting method'
>one should keep in mind that the amount of dissenting opinions should just
>need to reach 1/3 of total voices to make a decision not being considered
>as 'rough consensus'.

This ignores the laziness of the people. If you count the dissents, you may
get 20% and call it a compromise. But if you count the agreements, you may
get 60% and are not allowed to call it so.

>Also it seem to me that is more appropriate, in sake of stability and if a
>decision implies a change, to put the load to prove that such decision is
>good on the party which is proposing the change and not to be loaded on
>the party who (by dissenting) would like to keep the status quo.

Right idea, wrong consequence ;-) The changing party has to organize 66% of
agreements would be the better way to keep the status quo.

>If both ways are handled fairly I have no problems using one or the other
>but IMHO the 'non dissenting' one leaves more doors open to mistakes or to
>people who likes to play a little bit dirty.

Ack.