Re: [ga] Formulating Consensus ??

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Jeff,
I am fed-up both with false consensing  - I agree with Joanna/Roeland's 
analysis and I do not believe that the ICANN can be changed - but I am also 
fed-up with this false democracing which serves as an alibi to ICANNers and 
locks us into the ICANN ill designed structures and ways of thinking.

We need to get real ourselves. Danny's consensus mechanism conforms to the 
bylaws, MoU and mental sanity: we have to enforce it. We are not a 
democracy. We represent no one: we are concerned and experienced in issues 
which makes us acceptable trustees to others to represent that concerns and 
experiences. If these others desagree with us or do not trust us they may 
join. If they are not informed we may help trough outreach. If they do not 
bother this is their problem. SOs are no Parliaments, they are Consulting 
Groups and should be paid or at least supported by their Customer: the BoD.

In the particular case of Joanna, she may have confused the things so I 
will repeat:

- none of us represent any one. So please et forget about these "who made 
you king?" or "community correct to support in bloc" or "member of the so 
and so community".

- when a job must be accomplished we need every concerned competence to 
join: this is the only way to make sure that a consensus may be uncovered. 
Any other way demonstrates a childish interest in defending petty 
privildeges resulting from ill designed charters.

- nominations are a good way to push overloaded people into joining and to 
give them some support  in showing that the person's competence over the 
needs, problems and propositions for a "so and so community" is acknowledged.

- when missing competences are identified in a TF/WG, finding it is a 
priroity of the TF/WG.

So, I repeat to Philip my support of Joanna as a good choice on individual 
registrants issues and I call for an additional competence (like yours?) 
about bulk registrants issues. That Joanna is or is not happy with this, 
adopted some positions or not, agrees or disagrees with me does not change 
her qualifications. Period.

It will not change either that as a Registrant I happy neither with my 
Registrar future nor with my Registry present. That there are possible ways 
of improvement and that I would prefer to discuss real stuff rather than 
policy - at nomination as well as at TTF management level. Second Period.

Jefsey


On 03:32 28/11/01, Jeff Williams said:
>Jefsey and all assembly members,
>
>   I would have to agree with Jefsey's contention here as well.  Although
>Joanna may wish to be a candidate to represent registrants in some way
>within the DNSO or the DNSO GA, a vote should be taken and a nomination
>period for such a representative to be chosen within the GA.  As the DNSO GA
>has a process for this to occur I would therefore suggest that first the
>nominations be taken for such a position within the GA, and than
>a vote be taken in accordance with that outlined and documented
>process accordingly if such is approved by Danny's proposal in the
>form of a motion.
>
>Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > Dear Phiilp,
> > Patrick Corliss has brough to the attention of the GA the proposition of
> > Danny Younger to call on Joanna Lane as a representative of the registrant
> > community.
> >
> > This proposition has not been discussed in the GA and will obviously
> > creates a debate if you consider Joanna as a "representative of the
> > registrant community". Yet - as one of those who could object to such a
> > proposition - I will support it strongly if we could once for all agree on
> > the concept of representation within the DNSO. I suppose that an agreement
> > on this matter would also help reducing hours and tons of mailing.
> >
> > Joanna has strictly no right whatsoever to represent any community. She
> > recently left the only existing attempt to structure that community. But
> > she has every qualification to well represent the interests, concerns,
> > particular needs and propositions of the individual registrants. As you
> > have yourself no right to represent the Business Community, but absolutely
> > legitimately have every qualification to represent the interest, concerns,
> > etc... of the Business Community.
> >
> > I would thefore strongly recommend that once for all we agree that all of
> > us are no representatives in a democratic way but insuring a trustee
> > representation towards consensus. And that a consensus is not a vote but a
> > no major objection by qualified interests that (if the ICANN processus
> > recently underlined by Danny is respected) a 2/3 vote of a balanced open
> > group may warranty.
> >
> > I would also add that if Joanna is fully qualified, experienced and
> > competent about individual registrants, as myself also a bulk commercial
> > registrant (I manage more than 2000 DNs for several portal chains) there
> > are many issues that individual do not experience that should be
> > represented. These involves matters like:
> >
> > - script management
> > - payment systems and wire transfers
> > - status reports - format, accuracy, legal value
> > - user escrowning
> > - UDRP insurance protection scheme
> > - DN Title
> > - DN usage international notarization
> > - customership evaluation and compensation
> > - legal responsibility of the Registrars/Registries
> > - places of jurisdiction
> > - name server management and bulk updates procedures and delays
> > - emergency support - like the ncdnhc current problem
> > - authentification of the registrant
> > - TLD procedure harmonization
> >
> > I suppose the BC or the ISPC could be a place to find such a representation
> > with competence.
> > Best regards
> >
> > Jefsey
> >
> > On 17:46 26/11/01, Patrick Corliss said:
> > >On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 13:12:11 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> > >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00423.html
> > >
> > >Joanna,
> > >
> > >Marilyn Cade, chair of the NC task force on transfers, has passed on 
> to me as
> > >NC Chair, a request from Danny Younger for your participation in the task
> > >force as a representative of the registrant community but not as a
> > >representative of the GA.
> > >
> > >Typically, the working practice of task forces is that they comprise 
> one rep
> > >from each Constituency and an optional rep from the GA. They do work 
> to help
> > >formulate a recommendation to the NC.  In this work the TF themselves may
> > >consult experts and interested parties.
> > >
> > >Before taking this further could you let me know the basis for your
> > >qualification as a representative of the registrant community ?  In 
> this it
> > >would be helpful to know the means of outreach to other registrants, 
> how this
> > >is different to the nature of representation in the GA and how this is
> > >differentiated against the opinions currently available to the task 
> force from
> > >its membership.
> > >
> > >Many thanks.
> > >
> > >Philip Sheppard
> > >NC Chair
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >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 121k members/stakeholdes 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:  972-244-3801 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