From the [names] list:
>Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 13:32:05 -0400
>To: Becky Burr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], Esther Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Mike Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [names] Consensus on "consensus"
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost.html
>> >Also, see http://www.icannwatch.org
>> >****
>> >
>> >
