Subject: Re: Consensus

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 21:19:36 +0100

Dave and all,

Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 10:15 PM 7/12/98 -0400, K Kleiman wrote:
> >It was my understanding that the IFWP meetings were designed, not for voting,
> >but to find what all parties could agree on.  It was Dr. Frankel's thought
>
> Exactly.
>
> I'm surprised that this thread re-emerged again, so recently.  As was noted
> in the previous discussion of this topic, the issue is not "majority"
> versus "consensus" but, rather, unanimous consensus versus rough consensus.

  God Dave, where have yo been the past several years?  Head in the sand?
Sure seems like it!  Majority=consensus.  unanimous=total consensus,
and rough consensus??= not expectable or nothing.

>
>
> The Internet developed the "rough consensus" approach based on the
> experience which says that,
>
> 1.  At the high end, unanimity is always good to seek but rarely possible
> to attain for any "interesting" topic
>
> 2.  At the low end, as noted, a simple majority means that too many people
> disagree

  What a stupid and incorrect statement.  Majority means that there is a real
consensus, but not Unanimous.

>
>
> So the balance is to settle for a "strongly dominant" view.  This does not
> depend upon a specific percentage but, rather, a clear sense of the group
> that there is a clear sense of the group.

  Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, Dave you guys at the IAHC/gTLD-MoU tried to make
this point and said that there was "Rough Consensus" for you proposal.
Unfortunately
the MAJORITY didn't agree with you and the GP and later the WP became
necessary.  So now we are taking what some had to learn and most already
knew, and trying to take what is good from the gTLD-mOU and meld it
with other more enlightened ideas.

> In other words, no rational
> person can claim that the group does not have a clearly dominant view.

  This is most likely correct.  But most groups know what they do NOT want,
and have some good ideas that need flushing out or to be adopted.  Openness
to ALL internet Stakeholders is one that is definitely one that is enjoying
"Unanimous Consensus"  >;)

>
>
> Those in the losing, very small minority sometimes challenge whether there
> was a consensus, even though it was quite clear, so it is important to be
> able to have public review which assesses the validity of the challenge.
> Most such challenges in the IETF turn out to be incorrect, but they are
> ALWAYS taken very seriously.

  This is total rubbish.  And it is why there are more than just the IETF as
standards organizations like W3C for instance.

>
>
> At 03:46 PM 7/13/98 +0100, Ivan Pope wrote:
> >I don't think you can redefine 'consensus' any old way you feel like.
> >Consensus means everyone is in agreement.
>
> That's why Dave Clark's phrase "rough consensus" has come to be the
> standard term applied when describing Internet decision process.  It's
> quite explicit that it does not mean unanimity.

  No but it MUST mean Majority!

>
>
> d/
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Dave Crocker                         USA:                 +1 408 246 8253
> Brandenburg Consulting                                   675 Spruce Drive
>                                                   Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
> fax: +1 408 273 6464                 Malaysia:            +60 19 329 9445
> <http://www.brandenburg.com>                     Post Office Box 296, UPM
> <mailto:[email-masked]>              Serdang, Selangor 43400 MY
>
>

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]