Re: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Chuck and all assembly members,

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Danny,
>
> First of all we need to define the audience.  If you are concerned about
> trying to find a consensus about the community at large, then measuring it
> by registrars only is very inadequate.  There are many other stakeholders
> involved besides registrars although I would agree that the registrars are
> vital.

  We disagree that * Registrars * are * Vital *, but that they are
useful.

>  Obviously, a very critical group of stakeholders is made up of
> registrants.  Other key stakeholder groups include resellers and registries.

  We agree that registrants are a critical group.  In fact they are the
most critical group.  We disagree that resellers are a "Key" stakeholder
group, but that they are a "Special Interest" Stakeholder group.

>
>
> In my (maybe too idealistic) opinion, every effort should be made to come up
> with a solution that all parties are willing to accept and support.

  We disagree that all parties need or should support a single solution.
Rather we believe in the free and open marketplace of ideas, and competition.
Ergo, that any group of stakeholders to the extent that they can or wish to
may support what is in their best interests even to the point of consistently
being in conflict with other stakeholder groups.  This is especially important
in the DNS and the IP registry segment of the Internet, either commercial
or non-commercial.

>  This
> means that all parties need to be willing to constructively participate in
> the process.

  Yes.  But the process must be open for any and all interested parties
to participate in.  Currently it is not.  As such, any policy's ICANN
has thus far developed and/or determined, are not valid.

>  In the end, if they cannot come up with a solution that all or
> at least a very substantial portion of stakeholders will support, then maybe
> it should be concluded that there is no consensus.  Of course, we have to
> answer the question, what is 'a very substantial portion of the
> stakeholders."

  I think you need to delineate just "Stakeholders" from "Participating
Stakeholders" to answer this concern or question...

>
>
> There are currently 91 active registrars all of varying sizes.  Do they all
> have equal votes regardless of how impacted they will be with regard to the
> policy?

  Yes.

> Should only those who participate in the process be counted?

  Unfortunately yes.

>
> Should extra efforts be made to involve non-participants?

  Yes, of course.  This is a very important endeavor.

>  Should one key
> stakeholder be able to block all efforts to reach consensus?

  No.  But it is possible if that stakeholder has a compelling argument.

>  These
> questions and others need to be answered and I don't claim to have the right
> answers.

  Right answers?  The only "Right answers" are those that are given freely
and aboveboard...

>
>
> You will find that I tend to react negatively to any claim of consensus
> based on a simple vote.

  That is unfortunate, Chuck.  As a simple vote is the only accurate method
to measure and therefore determing ic a consensus exists.

>  As I have stated elsewhere, I do not see voting as
> the primary way of measuring consensus but rather as one tool to use on the
> way to achieving consensus.

  It is really both.

>  So, in response to your specific question, I
> would not automatically say that an 80 to 2 vote of registrars means
> consensus has been reached.

  It would be amongst the Registrars.

> I would need more data: how many registrars
> actually voted? how many registrants are represented by the 80 registrars
> and the 2 registrars?

  No Chuck, this would be suggesting that "Stacking the Deck" is expectable.
It is not!

> what efforts were made to reach out to the registrars
> who did not vote?

  A more important question would be: Were the efforts, if they existed
deemed or considered adequate to reach out to the registrars?

> what data is available from registrants? etc.

  Their vote is the most important one.  The effort to reach out to
potential registrants or existing registrants would also be important data.

>
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
> Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 9:56 AM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: [ga] Consensus... Definition?
>
> Chuck Gomes writes:  "Finally, one of the underlying assumptions that seems
> to be prevalent is
> that we should always be able to come to a consensus position.  It is not
> only possible but also reasonable that on many issues it will not be
> possible
> to reach a community consensus.  That is perfectly okay.  In those cases we
> should simply let market forces work as freely as possible and
> allow diversity so that consumers can choose what best meets their needs and
>
> interests."
>
> I think that we need to put this comment into perspective, so I will pose
> this question to Chuck:
>
> If the two largest gTLD registrars (that between them register over 70% of
> all such domains) adopt an auto-NACK policy, and the remaining 80 other
> registrars vote to adopt an auto-ACK policy, would you consider this to be a
>
> legitimate consensus for auto-ACK?
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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