Karl wrote, > I question how this "evident consensus" was ascertained. There > has been no "consensus count" or clearly stated question on this matter. > > I do suspect that if such a consensus count were to be made, the answer > would be conform to the asserted consensus. > > However, I must object to a bald assertion of "consensus" without there > being a clearly stated, and focused question placed before the e-mail > community. > Recalling Jon Z's image of ICANN being 'whipsawed' between its public and private roles, it occurs to me that it may be the Internet community which is being sawn more effectively by this consensus thing. As long as there is no 'membership' in the sense of an actual definable and countable number of voices, no 'consensus,' strictly speaking, can possibly exist -- but that is only to say, until there *is a countable membership, ICANN can *claim consensus wherever it feels the need, and no one can gainsay it. We are left in the position of the farmer who is trying to get the fox out of his henhouse, but can't decide whether to use the over-and-under or the double-barrel. It may be cynically concluded that it is in ICANNs interim interest, therefore, to fee-fiddle and foo-fuddle about the problems of setting up a membership. But by the same token, it just might be in the Internet *community's interest to get together on who or what body *does represent it -- be it minds, bodies, machines or corporations, verifiable or not, 'elected' or not, pro tem or not -- just so there is a point of reference for this phrase, which is so critical to governance and trust. It might, at the very least, be quite enlightening to go through the exercise of instituting such an entity with any credibility at all. May I suggest that, rather than supposing this to be a call for another round of Im-more-representative-than-you-are, one entertain the idea of an 'interactive voting machine' which is designated as The place to go when ICANN (or anyone else) wants to measure the I.Q. (Internet Qonsensus ;-)) ? This would *not* be a poll, or a place to vote in any of the conventional senses of the word. Rather, one contributes to a network of *questions to be decided* -- with the obviuous implication that a good many questions will sprout off in the course of *trying to decide earlier questions -- but since we are not aspiring to reach 'The Decision' itself by this process, but only a certifiable image of the real at-large process, it would seem to fill the need for I.Q. admirably. An initial exploration of this notion is available at http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/kerryo/g9/pie1.htm Contributions are more than welcome; theyre essential. kerry
