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

[parminder]

On Wednesday 11 January 2017 11:38 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
>  
>
> Clearly, Parminder, you are having trouble understanding the concept
>

Yes, Milton, I have cognitive deficiencies, you  will just have to put
up with it... p

> 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/20170112/484db050/attachment.html>