[Ws2-jurisdiction] Epistemological basis of sub-group's working - and my objection to the so called consensus

[Mueller, Milton L]

Clearly, Parminder, you are having trouble understanding the concept of reaching agreement in a group.
The 2 other voters expressed a preference for different wording. They discovered that there was very little support among others in the group for their preferred wording. So they accepted the fact that their wording would not win support and chose to go ahead with the wording that had the most support. In other words, they chose to give up a small thing in order to get a bigger, more important thing, namely a Q4 that addresses the broader issues of jurisdiction.

You seem to have completely lost sight of the fact that without these compromises, there is a very high chance that there would be no Q4 at all, and possibly even no questions 1-4 at all.

So we have one objection, and one only, to the "so-called consensus." Your view has been heard, repeatedly, is understood, and no one else agrees with it. And that qualifies as rough consensus in any book.

--MM

From: ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-jurisdiction-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of parminder
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 11:10 AM
To: ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ws2-jurisdiction] Epistemological basis of sub-group's working - and my objection to the so called consensus




On Wednesday 11 January 2017 09:14 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:


You are wrong, or rather misrepresenting things, Milton. Not just two "no" votes were expressing preference for what you call as small alterations in wording, in fact,  all three "no" votes (including mine) were calling for just that small alteration.

MM: What I meant was that only one of the three people you refer to - namely you - expressed a view that going ahead was unacceptable. The other two simply preferred to have the wording changed, but were willing to go ahead without the (yes, minor) wording change they preferred.

I dont see where you are reading the vote of these "other two" as agreeing to go ahead with the David's text. They clearly voted against, the only time a vote on text was called.
The only point on which I alone voted against was, when Greg asked, and I quote "We seem to have a consensus position. Anyone objecting to this being the consensus?" This was a call to agree or disagree with the "process' not the substance or text under judgement.

So, yes, I alone said, I do not agree with the consensus process. No one else did. Both you and Greg, in an earlier email, is taking it to be a 11-1 vote for the "text" finally adopted. It was a 11-3 vote, till the end. The opposing 3 never withdrew their opposition to the text finally agreed. Not objecting to a process being called consensus - as I did object - does not make them agree to the text under consideration. It is simple, isnt it.

The point may be moot now, but lets not misrepresent facts.

And then if the proposed amendments to David's text were really 'minor" as you re-assert, why did you / others not try and agree with them?

parminder









_______________________________________________

Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list

Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org<mailto:Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-jurisdiction/attachments/20170111/0165261a/attachment.html>