[governance] PINGO

[Mawaki Chango]

On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:

>
> Also, a key element of rough consensus processes is that those who are
> critical of a proposal must be given the opportunity to explain what in
> their view is wrong with the proposal, and there must be a culture of
> listening to and considering such arguments.
>
> "Rough consensus" means that after listening to and considering the
> arguments of those who hold critical views, there is still an
> overwhelming majority in support of the proposal.
>
> In my opinion, rough consensus processes are a very valuable tool when
> institutionalized in a proper context, as is the case e.g. in IETF.
>
> Using the term "rough consensus" for what happened at NetMundial is in
> my view not only factually wrong, but also comes with a significant
> risk of muddying the waters to the point where it becomes near
> impossibly difficult of explaining to people what rough consensus
> processes are and why the outcome documents of (genuine!) rough
> consensus processes should be considered to have significant weight and
> credibility -- within the scope of the expertise that is broadly
> distributed among the group that has reached rough consensus (which
> scope is of course rather limited in the case of the IETF.)
>

I'd agree that we need to be careful with the use of words here. We already
have enough trouble with "multistakeholderism"!
Was what we set out to do at NETmundial subject to consensus call procedure
(whether full or rough consensus)? Were we in position to possibly check
all the boxes for such a procedure? It's not really clear to me NETmundial
was designed to do that. However, this perception (of something of a
consensus) may be due to the fact that the NETmundial Declaration still is
the outcome of negotiations or of a bargain (if you will) among several
parties with divergent interests. In those conditions, the outcome is
inevitably seen as something most parties agree on, to some extent, if only
though compromising and concessions.

Now maybe we need a (more) proper way to document what the disagreements
are/were as well as to define the kind of agreement that (the NETmundial
outcome) actually is.

Cheers!
mawaki



>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140513/847cd86e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t