Alan Greenberg wrote:
Making no attempt to defend ICANN on these matters, I think that you are confusing "consensus policy" and "politeness" with not taking strong positions.
To me, politeness in this context is an explicit aversion to confrontation. Its inability to invoke policy unless everyone agrees simply leads to policy that offends nobody. In ICANN's current world driven by politics, money, and attempts by some to turn it into a defacto treaty organization, this means that any counter-initiative that asserts the public interest -- or attempts to curtail ICANN's own internal lust for growth -- is doomed to fail. The Westlake rationale against giving votes to At-Large was that Board members who were ("overly") assertive of the public interest would threaten the consensus process by confronting the existing inertia -- perhaps it would refuse to agree to policy that was seen to be against the public interest, even if everyone else on the Board agreed. Heaven forbid that they would block "compromises" that simply rewarded the most persistent bullies. In the worst-case scenario, they might even force *votes* and force individual Board members to account for their own decisions. How dare they! I sincerely thank the BGC ALAC review committee for resisting the worst of the Westlake report. Still, I but cannot help but wonder who gave Westlake its frames of reference, ones seemingly designed to keep At-Large docile, toothless and chasing its own tail?
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. That can only happen if the corners of ICANN that have traditionally gotten their way unchecked themselves learn to compromise. This is IMO unlikely but still remotely possible.
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. If there is public and loud disagreement from board members on a decided policy, then how is that result called a consensus? To me, that simply sounds like an informal vote in which the "winners" decline personal responsibility for their action, hiding behind the herd.
- Evan