RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

Joanna,

Please note my comments below.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: Joanna Lane [mailto:jo-uk@rcn.com]
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 9:52 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Roeland Meyer'; 'Sotiris Sotiropoulos'; ga
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus... Definition?


on 8/13/01 7:16 AM, Gomes, Chuck at cgomes@verisign.com wrote:

> Joanna,
> 
> I do not have any preconceived ideas about how outreach should happen.  I
> think it will vary by issue and by region of the world.  But I think it
will
> be a very long time, if ever, before such outreach can be limited to
> participants within DNSO processes such as the GA and the constituencies.
> 
> Chuck

Chuck,

This is the first time I have heard the DNSO referred to as "outreach". I
thought that we were the ones responsible for doing the outreach, as part of
formulating policy recommendations, not the subject of it, for somebody else
to evaluate and formulate the recommendations.

(Chuck) - Where did I refer to the DNSO as outreach?  I must be missing
something here.  I do agree with you that we (DNSO) are responsible for
outreach in the consensus process.

Allow me to rephrase the questions you didn't answer. This is not a test,
it's an inquiry. Do you think that as part of bottom-up ICANN consensus
development, that the NC and/or Constituencies and/or the GA should consider
involving non-members, such as public interest organizations, assimilating
and deliberating on their reports prior to making policy recommendations? If
so, which part of the DNSO is best qualified to undertake this task? Also,
do you think that the DNSO should develop and implement a policy for
outreach to attract new participants into the bottom-up ICANN consensus
development process for reasons of reducing the limitations of the currently
small subset of participants? If so, how can we tackle this without funding?

(Chuck) - Yes, I do think that the DNSO should reach out to nonmembers as
part of the consensus process.  The more stakeholders who are represented in
a consensus process the more valid the consensus will be.  And I think it is
accurate to conclude that the DNSO does not have adequate involvement by
many stakeholders.  At the same time those unrepresented stakeholders may be
impacted by the policy being considered.  I think that the consensus
development process should include steps such as attempting to identify key
stakeholders and then trying to involve any unrepresented stakeholders in
the process.  If they are unresponsive, the efforts can be documented along
with their unresponsiveness.  Then the NC, in its role of managing the
consensus process and in its responsibility to determine whether a consensus
has been reached, would be able to see that efforts were made to involve all
stakeholders.  That in my opinion makes the consensus process stronger.
 

Regards,
Joanna
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html