Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Polls and consensus and the meaning of life -- was "Table order"

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Complete agreement with my senior co-chair!.

dang!  Jothan beat me to the "take a straw vote on whether to have such a poll" 
idea.  

i'm all about continuing to beat a dead horse...   :-)

of course, under the joke lies an interesting question (NOT for this working 
group, but maybe for the GNSO and ICANN as a whole) which is this.  is 
"consensus" always the right decision-making model?  my humble view is that 
consensus decision-making relies heavily on the ability to frequently and 
accurately assess the "sense of the group"...  

one of the things i've come to realize is that this is MUCH more easily done 
when people are in the same room (like the broadband task force i was on) where 
a chair can just ask for a show of hands.  but when we're spread out and 
working either by phone or by email, frequent "taking the pulse" is much harder 
to do.  the best example of the "quick/simple get the sense of the group" 
process going really wrong and setting us back was on the last call when the 
Adobe polling got away from me and we lost Avri.  

which in turn leads me to reflect on whether consensus is really always the 
best decision-making process for the kind of work we've been doing.  another 
critical success factor for consensus decision-making is to have "enough time" 
available, whatever that turns out to be.  that's where the group gets to work 
out minor differences, gain a better understanding of other views, build trust, 
build friendship, etc.  those of us who met each other in Brussels gained a lot 
from that, and normal consensus decision-making assumes that to be the 
situation.

i think we REALLY stretched the limits of all of those things with this 
really-dispersed, over-the-wire, super-tight-timeline working group.  i think 
we're doing great, given all those pressures.  but maybe some of us owe it to 
the community to wander off and cogitate about the implications of all that, 
and whether "bottom-up CONSENSUS-based" is really the right model when a 
decision needs to be made really fast.  in fact -- my trivia question of the 
day is this -- when did "bottom-up" get transmogrified into "bottom-up 
consensus-based" in the ICANN credo?  was that a conscious decision and, if so, 
who made it and why?

just ramblings...  not even vaguely thinking that the WG should do anything 
about that.

no reply needed...

mikey

On Jul 21, 2010, at 3:09 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Let's have a poll!
>  
> OK, OK, I admit it is a bad joke.
>  
> R.
>  
>  
> 
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Ron Andruff
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 July 2010 21:54
> To: 'Antony Van Couvering'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Table order
> 
> Can we split the hair any further?  In all seriousness, do you really think 
> that would add value…?  Please Antony, let’s focus on the things that matter. 
>  This exercise is trying enough as it is.
>  
> RA
>  
> Ronald N. Andruff
> RNA Partners, Inc.
>  
>  
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Antony Van Couvering
> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 3:17 PM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Table order
>  
> Section 5, the table of support:
>  
> The proposal should either be ranked by level of support, or alphabetically, 
> or according to some other acceptable rationale...
>  
> Antony
>  
>  
>  
> On Jul 21, 2010, at 10:38 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
> 
> 
> Thanks Alan.  You got to it just before me. 
>  
> I do belive I'm a member of the WG but I'm not on the list.  While I did not 
> get a chance to vote in the last round, I am irrevocably for Free Trade and 
> would wish to always be noted as such. 
>  
> Thanks much.
> Carlton
> 
> ==============================
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
> =============================
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
> 
> I just did a cross-check and Volker is the only one who voted and is not on 
> the list. However, I noted that Carlton Samuels, who did not vote, has been a 
> member of the WG (or at least has been on the mailing list). So that makes 
> the list of WG members who were eligible to vote at least 66.
> 
> Alan
> 
> 
> At 21/07/2010 12:26 PM, Berry Cobb wrote:
> 
> I will ask when was the Volunteer list last updated?  Not to single out
> anyone but for example Volker is not on this list.
> 
> 
> Berry Cobb
> Infinity Portals LLC
> berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://infinityportals.com
> 866.921.8891
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 9:00 AM
> To: Mike O'Connor; Neuman, Jeff
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] New version of the report-draft candidate --
> now Version 5
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> Still can't be right. The JN2 line totals 63 and the others all total 67.
> 
> The Volunteer list (excluding staff) on the Wiki
> (https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?list_of_working_group_v
> olunteers)
> has 68 names, so excluding the two Board members and the two
> co-chairs the totals *should* be 64.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 21/07/2010 09:38 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> >ahhh...
> >
> >the Did Not Vote column now reflects the *total* number of people in
> >the working group.  that was another sub-thread in which it was
> >pointed out that not everybody took the poll.  that previous version
> >was a listing of people who took the poll, but didn't answer that question.
> >
> >mikey
>  
>  
>  

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     http://www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)