Milton L Mueller wrote:
> No time to go into detail, but the report is a half-win for us. They seem to have closely followed our recommendations for constituency structure: it proposes 4 constituencies (Registrars, Registries, Noncommercial users, Commercial users) with the same number of votes. It also seems to acknowledge or embrace our idea of allowing individuals to join either commercial or noncommercial constituencies (NB: Kathy Kleiman!) but not both. It does not attempt to insert ALAC into the GNSO.
>
> The bad news is that they have, despite all our enlightening experience with the Whois WG, clung to the notion that "voting is polarizing" and should be minimized or eliminated. 
>   
So we have to mention this, again and again, including the preceding
examples where and why it did not work.

This is another of these myths which I never could follow: the
assumption if you only work seriously and long enough, there will be
consensus. Those who say so just try to camouflage that - in this world
- there is always also the possibility of DISAGREEMENT.
> I thought the fantasies about consensus were ended when the Whois WG, which operated entirely without voting and sought "consensus," collapsed in disagreement and polarization in August. The Whois WG gave us a taste of what "consensus decision making" will really be like when the chair, trademark lobbyist Philip Shepherd, unable to reach anything near a consensus, _redefined consensus_ as "a majority of whoever showed up on the latest phone call" in order to be able to declare that he had one. 
>
> --MM 
>   
And some people want then to steamroller over it and say it was agreed...

Thanks for such a clear statement form Phillipp what consensus is: "a
majority of whoever showed up on the latest phone call"

NOT AGREED.


Norbert

-- 
If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia,
please visit us regularly - you can find something new every day:

http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com