Re: Consensus v. consensus

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Ivan and all,

Ivan Pope wrote:

> >
> >You may not be familiar with how "one-party" politcal systems work.
> >People that grow up in those situations are very comfortable with it.
> >
> >You can not apply "two-party" models to a one-party world.
> >
> >My suggestion is that we recognize that the U.S. Government selected
> >the "one-party" society to inherit the IPv4/6 empire. That can not be
> >changed and I think that you will find that many people are very
> >comfortable living in that one-party community. It is like Cuba. The
> >U.S. Government draws a circle around the place and says, "OK,
> >everyone that likes it here...have a good time...".
> >
> >Keep in mind....
> >
> >In order to build heaven, you have to first define the boundaries of hell.
> >
> >In my opinion, there is consensus on where those boundaries are...
> >now, the task is to make sure that good people do not end up on
> >the wrong side of the fence...
>
> I don't think you can redefine 'consensus' any old way you feel like.
> Consensus means everyone is in agreement. Of course, one way to find
> consensus is to exclude those who are not in agreement. However, that's not
> an option here. So what is the how does this proceed if there is no
> consensus? And how do consensus seekers deal with the issues that do not
> have consensus?

  We have been over this "Consensus" subject a dozen times before and no
real conclusions were reached.  Therefore, we submit that a "Consensus"
model for determination of decisions of this magnitude is not workable.
One must use a Majority decision model as eluded to in the White
Paper.  The term used I believe was "Super Majority".  This would
require a voting mechanism.

> Ivan
>
>

 Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com