Mike,
I believe the bottom up consensus makes sense if it obtains initial resolve amongst the general members, then progresses as a mandate to committee for conclusion. If applied in this manner there would be less resistance with the final statement.
Michael Castello
CEO/President
Castello Cities Internet Network, Inc.
--
Wednesday, August 11, 2010, 5:14:27 AM, you wrote:
|
i'd like to add something to the scope of this discussion -- the question of whether the consensus decision-making model is really the best one to use in all cases. the early ICANN documents talk about a "bottom-up process" for quite a while. then, at some point which is hard to pin down, that language changed to "bottom-up consensus-based process." i've had a hard time figuring out why that choice was made. there are all kinds of decision-making processes with different strengths and weaknesses. the primary weaknesses of consensus are a) it's not well suited to making decisions quickly or on a schedule and b) it can lead to a no-decision outcome (which can be gamed). what would be neat, in my view, would be an addition to the chartering process which decided what policy-development model AND decision-making approach would be used when launching a PDP, with some guidelines to help people decide... mikey
On Aug 11, 2010, at 2:46 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote: In the context of the VI debater Mike R has made a telling comment:
"I do not think it possible to get the support of parties who have a vested economic interest in the status quo"
This to my mind is one of the key flaws of the WG model of policy development. Incumbents are able to manipulate future markets. This has anti-trust implications.
A User House project could usefully take this up for broader discussion. First steps would by CSG agreement to do so. Sarah - would you be willing to take this forward?
Philip - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.) |