[At-Large] ICANN PREGUNTAS

[Alan Greenberg]

At 18/02/2009 06:13 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>It seems to me -- despite my relative youth in ICANN politics -- that
>this culture of consensus has simply led to governance by "what offends
>the least" as opposed to leadership or assertion of even its published
>mission. All in the interest of politeness. It's even entrenched the
>concept of "consensus policy" ... as if that should have some different
>status compared to plain old "policy". Indeed, I think some parts of
>ICANN are even proud of this lowest-common-denominator approach to
>leadership. Yet in my short time in ICANN I've come to see it as a
>dereliction of duty, and a total unwillingness to stand up for anything
>of value except unchallenged growth for its own sake.
>
>- Evan

Making no attempt to defend ICANN on these matters, I think that you 
are confusing "consensus policy" and "politeness" with not taking 
strong positions.

I have sat on Boards where I was in violent disagreement with what 
others at the table were saying. I hope that in citing this 
disagreement, I was generally still polite and civil. What we do have 
is often "group think" (do a web search on "Abilene paradox") and 
people not wanting to say things that are politically incorrect and 
not wanting to confront differences. Or perhaps after loosing a few 
battles, some people just give up. And certainly how we select 
Directors ends up influencing how they behave.

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.

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.

Alan