[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ICANN-EU] Bylaws Version 0.2
- To: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>, Iliya Nickelt-Czycykowski <iczycykowski@aip.de>
- Subject: Re: [ICANN-EU] Bylaws Version 0.2
- From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
- Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 10:52:48 +1300
- Cc: icann-europe@fitug.de
- Comment: This message comes from the icann-europe mailing list.
- In-Reply-To: <20001003225133.C9370@sobolev.does-not-exist.org>
- References: <Pine.HPX.4.21.0009291618450.13819-100000@umbra.aip.de><Pine.HPX.4.21.0009291618450.13819-100000@umbra.aip.de>
- Sender: owner-icann-europe@fitug.de
At 22:51 3/10/00 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>While we are on it, what's the general impression about
>consesus-building versus votes? Andy Müller-Maguhn seems to have a
>very pronounced opinion of this, even comparing ICANN's
>consensus-building process (or what's there of it ,-) to late
>Stalinistic dictatorships...
>
When we are dealing with large numbers, voting is the only acceptable way
to quantify opinion.
As you observed above, there are easy and fair ways to prevent abuse of
"calling for a vote".
Technology enables us to vote frequently without much cost.
If we get tired of voting and the participation percentage drops, it means
the issues are not important enough and not-voting becomes a decision in
itself.
On the other hand the abuses associated with "consensus building" are far
harder to control. We have seen it in the DNSO working groups.
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
the Cyberspace Association and
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org