Re: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Consensus Discussion: Additional Thought

[Thomas Roessler <tlr@xxxxxx>]

On 16 Apr 2009, at 12:57, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> > One way out of this conundrum is for the chair to
> > determine a (possibly rough) consensus,
> That's precisely what we should avoid. The end result of many of
> these WG efforts will be policy recommendations, that if accepted,
> will become binding on contracted parties. A PDP of that nature
> is more akin to a legistative act than it is to an IETF RFC or a
> W3C BP.
One important point in parliamentary processes is that you have a  
finite set of people on which to count votes.  If the your set of  
votes can be stacked by any sufficiently resourced and determined  
adversary, precise numbers create an illusion of certainty, but don't  
actually buy you much.
That's why I emphasized reasoned objections, and the importance of  
council.
Put differently, the fundamental point here is this point from  
yesterday's call:
> Tim emphasized an important point that any “consensus” policy is  
> enforceable on the contracted parties and those so obligated will  
> want to be sure that any consensus reached was definitive and  
> rigorously defined/enforced.  As a result, it may be difficult to  
> get past headcount and numbers if we expect others to be bound to  
> the results.
https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/icann-ppsc/attachments/working_group_team:20090416010511-0-30060/original/WGT%2520Conf%2520Call-Summary%2520(15%2520Apr%252009).pdf

The critical distinction in assumptions is that you see the chair's  
consensus call as the critical predetermination whether or not a  
result should become consensus policy.  I see it as a tool to move the  
group forward to a recommendation that is then ratified (or not!) by a  
better legitimized council.
Of course, that's a fundamental dependency on whatever the policy  
process will say.