At 18/02/2009 06:13 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
It seems to me -- despite my relative youth in ICANN politics -- that this culture of consensus has simply led to governance by "what offends the least" as opposed to leadership or assertion of even its published mission. All in the interest of politeness. It's even entrenched the concept of "consensus policy" ... as if that should have some different status compared to plain old "policy". Indeed, I think some parts of ICANN are even proud of this lowest-common-denominator approach to leadership. Yet in my short time in ICANN I've come to see it as a dereliction of duty, and a total unwillingness to stand up for anything of value except unchallenged growth for its own sake.
- Evan
Making no attempt to defend ICANN on these matters, I think that you are confusing "consensus policy" and "politeness" with not taking strong positions. I have sat on Boards where I was in violent disagreement with what others at the table were saying. I hope that in citing this disagreement, I was generally still polite and civil. What we do have is often "group think" (do a web search on "Abilene paradox") and people not wanting to say things that are politically incorrect and not wanting to confront differences. Or perhaps after loosing a few battles, some people just give up. And certainly how we select Directors ends up influencing how they behave. In short, it is fine to arrive at a "consensus", but the process of getting there can, and in a polically-charged world such as ICANN's, SHOULD be rough indeed. ICANN's "Consensus Policy" concept is that in the end, IF most people agree, then it can become a formal policy. But the process of getting there, IF you actually do get there, may be polite and civil (although perhaps not always) but there is no shortage of people publicly and loudly pointing out their disagreement. Alan