Re: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 08:54:10AM -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> Patrick,
> 
> I also think Danny did a very good job in discussing consensus in the
> message to reference below.  In fact I personally complemented him in this
> regard after first reading it.
> 
> But, whereas I do believe that structurally changes could definitely improve
> the consensus development process, I do not agree that the problems are
> primarily structural versus procedural.  Regardless of what structural
> changes are made, if clearly defined processes and procedures are not put
> into place, we will find ourselves right back where we are now.  In a global
> and hugely diverse environment like the Internet, consensus will always be
> hard to reach.  Therefore, if there are not clearly defined policies and
> procedures with regard to what should be expected outcomes of the consensus
> development efforts, it seems highly unlikely that it will be successful.  I
> personally believe that is why many people currently are trying to take
> shortcuts with regard to consensus development (e.g., task forces).  They
> are easier and take less effort and it's not too hard to convince some
> people that they are legitimate, but in reality they are a far cry from what
> the bylaws and contracts between ICANN and registries demand.

That is, NSI/VSGN will feel free to ignore whatever conclusions may come
from any task force of the DNSO.  

That's very convenient for VSGN, but I don't accept your premise.  Task
forces and the like are clearly contemplated in the bylaws:

  b) The NC is responsible for the management of the consensus building
  process of the DNSO.  It shall adopt such procedures and policies as
  it sees fit to carry out that responsibility, including the
  designation of such research or drafting committees, working groups
  and other bodies of the GA as it determines are appropriate to carry
  out the substantive work of the DNSO.

And are consistent with the relevant text from the contract:

  1.  "Consensus Policies" are those specifications or policies
  established based on a consensus among Internet stakeholders
  represented in the ICANN process, as demonstrated by (1) action of the
  ICANN Board of Directors establishing the specification or policy, (2)
  a recommendation, adopted by at least a two-thirds vote of the council
  of the ICANN Supporting Organization to which the matter is delegated,
  that the specification or policy should be established, and (3) a
  written report and supporting materials (which must include all
  substantive submissions to the Supporting Organization relating to the
  proposal) that (i) documents the extent of agreement and disagreement
  among impacted groups, (ii) documents the outreach process used to
  seek to achieve adequate representation of the views of groups that
  are likely to be impacted, and (iii) documents the nature and
  intensity of reasoned support and opposition to the proposed policy. 

Working groups, such as described in the WG-D report, have simply not
worked out as a means of generating substantive work across a broad
population -- they inevitably seem to degenerate to a small core of 
contentious people who drive away all other participants, and then 
produce a report that has a very narrow base.  (It pains me to say 
this, because I am a big fan of the IETF model -- I do hope that in the 
long run, as ICANN becomes more and more mundane, that WGs will be 
possible.  But it is undeniably true that they have not worked well so 
far.) 

Task forces and so on were developed as a means of getting productive
work done in a very noisy and contentious environment, and they are
making progress.  Surveys and similar instruments, though they have
their own faults, are proving to be a much more objective and useful
means of gauging community sentiment than are noisy mailing lists. 

In sum, I think the claims you are making are groundless.  Finding
consensus policies is indeed very difficult work, but the processes
currently in use meet both the terms of the ICANN bylaws and the terms
of the registry contracts, and, though progress is slow, consensus
policies, as defined in the bylaws and contracts, are being developed.

It would of course be convenient for VSGN to be able to ignore those 
policies at whim, so I can understand why it would be in their interest 
to cast the undeniable noise as a "failure of consensus".

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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