RE: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

I tend to agree with Patrick Greenwell. But, that is the essence of why I
have been insisting on a voting/polling system for the past year. Not only
that, but the "consensus" system has been much abused. It has very poor
protection against dishonest people and bad actors. That is essentially why
US Congress doesn't use it, it has no credibility.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Patrick Greenwell [mailto:patrick@stealthgeeks.net]
|> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 8:06 AM
|> To: Gomes, Chuck
|> Cc: 'Patrick Corliss'; [ga]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure
|> 
|> 
|> On Fri, 23 Nov 2001, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
|> 
|> > Patrick,
|> >
|> > I looks to me like we are in fairly close agreement.  I 
|> also believe that
|> > separating the suppliers from the users is a useful idea.  
|> I understand, as
|> > Roland points out in a separate post, that there is no 
|> perfect way to
|> > separate producers from users.  But I believe that one of 
|> the complications
|> > in the current DNSO model that makes it very difficult for 
|> the consensus
|> > process to work is the fact that users and producers are 
|> in the same SO.
|> 
|> (different Patrick responding :-) ):
|> 
|> I think that you'll find and what we have borne witness to 
|> is that when
|> you have a large group of divergent interests consensus 
|> simply does not
|> work(gasp.) Organizations like the IETF work (mostly) 
|> because while you
|> have a large group of people they are virtually all 
|> "technical" and limit
|> the scope of their work to specific 
|> proctocols/specifications for specific
|> technologies.
|> 
|> ICANN is a much different beast than the IETF. Simply 
|> labeling one group
|> "suppliers" and the other "consumers" is an extreme 
|> oversimplification of
|> the the issue. What I as a consumer want may be markedly 
|> different than
|> what a farmer in Iowa wants, with a completely different set of
|> motivations and goals. Lumping us both in a consumer 
|> category trying to
|> use vehicle of "consensus" is unlikely to work very well, 
|> just like it
|> hasn't worked very well for ICANN as an organization.
|> 
|> The term "consensus" has been horribly abused to mean 
|> whatever agenda the
|> majority of the ICANN board, staff, and people with very 
|> deep pockets want
|> (IP interests, Neustar, et. al.) UDRP, ICP3, countless denials for
|> valid reconsideration claims, the list goes on and on.
|> 
|> Whenever I hear the word consensus now even outside of the 
|> confines of ICANNs
|> little world I cringe.
|> 
|> We would be best served by establishing a set of workable voting
|> systems/processes, doing away with the lie of "consensus" that has
|> permeated ICANN as well as the constant gerrymandering the 
|> occurs on a
|> daily basis dedicated to keeping people *out* rather than 
|> bringing them
|> in.
|> 
|> I suffer no illusion that any of this will happen of course.
|> 
|> 
|> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
|> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
|>                                Patrick Greenwell
|>        Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of 
|> wrong answers.
|> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
|> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
|> 
|> --
|> 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-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