RE: [ga] Formulating Consensus ??

[Joseph <fhlee@tm.net.my>]

Hi,
	From my short time as a subscriber to this GA ML, I tend to agree with
Jefsey on that the GA is locked in a world of policies, bylaws and all the
"stuffs" which will kill any "suggestion/motion for improvements".  There
are no proper procedures/policy being employed in guiding the discussion and
consensus making process here.  There are a lot of "free-style-debates"
going on, but I don't see how these "debates" will bring about any changes.
I don't see ICANN "acting" or even "acknowledging" these debates. Even IF
(that is a capital IF) everybody here agrees on something, so what?  Will
ICANN accept/act on it?  Not really ...  Are we wasting out time here?

From an observer/newbie, I feel that this GA is just a get-together with no
impact at all ... Sad.

I again agree with Jefsey that irregardless of policies, procedures, bylaws,
what is important are Results. Let's focus on getting results.  How to do
that? Change ICANN?  I don't think that can be achieved ... anyone?  We have
to device a way where the GA can force ICANN to seriously look at it.

I know some will say that we need to follow the policies and bylaws in order
for whatever decisions to be accepted. True, but look at what "following the
laid policies" have taken us?  Nowhere!

In the absence of a Individual Constituency, I will support Joanna as the
individual rep any time.  But really, will it make any difference? Will
ICANN listen?

I do not know how to word it in nice "formally and legally accepted terms",
but this is generally a Call-To-Action for reform.


regards,
- Joseph
================


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Jefsey
Morfin
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 7:04 PM
To: ga@dnso.org
Cc: philip.sheppard@aim.be
Subject: Re: [ga] Formulating Consensus ??


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@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