FYI:
>Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 10:34:05 -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 08:41 AM 10/8/99 , Joe Sims wrote:
>>___________________________________________________________________________
>>____
>>
>> This message is intended for the individual or entity named above. If you
>>are not the intended
>> recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to
>>others; also please
>> notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from
>>your system. Thank you.
>>___________________________________________________________________________
>>____
>
>
>Hi Joe,
>
>It looks like Jonathan invited in
>some reinforcements. Welcome . . .
>
>
>>with all due respect, one person's "manipulation" of consensus is another
>>person's "recognition." The best test of whether ICANN is in fact a
>>consensus-based organization is whether most of the Internet stakeholder
>>constituencies are working within and with ICANN to help it succeed.
>
>
>IMHO, that's a ridiculous claim.
>
>I suppose you would also claim that the
>Soviet Union had total support from its
>citizens, because virtually all of them
>voted in their national elections!
>
>Almost every organization that I know
>that is participating in ICANN, is doing
>so to try and mitigate any more damage
>from ICANN.
>
>
>>I would submit that the roster of ICANN participants -- by definition
>>those who think that ICANN is functioning satisfactorily as a
>>consensus-development body -- is rather larger than the lineup of those,
>>like David, that happen to disagree with policies or procedures that the
>>majority of stakeholders have created through the ICANN vehicle, and define
>>that disagreement as "manipulation" of consensus.
>
>
>Up is down,
>Good is bad,
>Black is white,
>Welcome to 1984!
>
>Maybe you missed it, but we've just been
>told that the entire reason we are using
>consensus instead of voting is to give
>minority voices a chance to be heard.
>
>Your response, however, is typical. If
>the minority doesn't comport with ICANN's
>agenda, then they are marginalized, even
>when it includes legal scholars like a
>David Post and Larry Lessig, or consumer
>protection organizations like Ralph Nader's
>CPT and the Small Business Administration.
>
>But then again, this only proves my point.
>
>Using the arbitrary definition of consensus
>provides those in power with a tremendous
>amount of discretionary power. Your comments
>only confirm how this power can be abused.
>
>Jay.
>
>
>>
>> (Embedded
>> image moved David Post <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> to file: 10/07/99 10:34 PM
>> pic08406.pcx)
>>
>>
>>
>>Extension:
>>
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>cc: (bcc: Joe Sims/JonesDay)
>>Subject: Re: [names] Consensus on "consensus"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>At 01:32 PM 10/7/99 -0400, Jay F. wrote:
>>[snip]
>>
>> >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.
>> >
>>[big snip]
>>
>>Jay, NO ONE (especially me) is disagreeing with you that the Board has
>>manipulated the definition of consensus in rather egregious ways. The
>>question is whether that is somehow an inherent flaw in a system based
>>on consensus. I don't think it is. I think all of these examples you
>>give are reasons why we should not allow the Board to determine,
>>without explanation, whether or not there is consensus. I take it you
>>agree about this. There's a need for a process to make sure that this
>>manipulation does not happen -- but I'm not in favor of throwing the
>>consensus baby out with the bathwater.
>>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
>>****
