[ga]"Consensus"

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

I just love it when I ask a question and someone comes back
with a definitive answer. I had asked whether, in the previous
effort to establish an Individual Domain Name Holders
Constituency (or an Individuals Constituency -- IC -- which
is shorter), those behind it had "dropped the ball."  The answer
tells me that "no, they did not -- they got whacked up 'long side
the head with it." (Whether or not the ball also got dropped is
addressed below.)

Danny Younger kindly directed me (actually, all of us) to
http://www.icann.org/melbourne/dnso-review-report-17feb01.htm.
Carefully threading through, one then finds this:
http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01825.html,
which says:
_____
 "Motion by Chris McElroy & David Farrar

 The WG Review has reached a near consensus that a new
Constituency be added  to represent Individual Domain Name
Registrants. This WG has not addressed  the matter of how to
implement this new Constituency, neither has it proposed what
group should represent them, nor how it is to be formed. We
only  present that one should be formed or selected within six
months.We specifically  propose a dedicated working group
be set up to come up with specific proposals and options on
the structure and functioning of the constituency.

We ask that this process be expedited in this way because
we believe it to  be an oversight not to have included them in
the process from the beginning. Furthermore, we hope this
matter would be put on the agenda as a top priority and that
public comment will be sought on how this constituency shall
be formed.

 * * *
______

and:
______
A formal vote was held on the motion below and passed  as follows

 Total number of voters: 22

 NO                        4     18.1818%
 YES                    18      81.8182%
______

Contrasted with that, though, ultimately one also finds this:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-review/Arc00/msg00026.html,

within which is the link Task Force Comments.doc -- a document that
makes
very interesting reading.

The American Intellectual Property Association (e.g., read "trademark
lawyers"),
with its asserted 11,000 members, doesn't seem to think much of the GA,
or at
least the Names Council:
______
The Names Council

In the AIPLA’s view, the DNSO Names Council has not lived up to
expectations.
In saying this, we are not unmindful of the tremendous time demands that
the Names
Council activities places on its members; however, the Names Council is,
in our view,
the focal point for the activities conducted by the DNSO. Steps need to
taken to
permit Names Council members to make more effective use of their time in

developing consensus on issues presented to them from the ICANN Board or
arising
from DNSO Constituencies. Perhaps considering techniques to encourage
greater
participation by all members in Names Council deliberations and
developing clear
mandates, procedures, and time lines would contribute to more effective
operation
of the Names Council.
_______

In passing, I note that, if I can trust my handy dandy searcher, the
term
"consensus" appears nowhere in the Bylaws.  Democratic process are
characterized by tumult, and rightly so. However, I also note the
following:

____
Overlap of Constituencies

 The Preliminary Report notes that the internal structures of
Constituencies
differ and that there is considerable overlap between certain
Constituencies.
While the Preliminary Report does not specify which Constituencies
overlap,
it would be our observation that this is true. For this reason, it might
be a useful
first step to undertake a study to determine the extent to which
Constituencies
overlap and to ascertain whether a greater community of interests might
be
achieved with some adjustment of their charters. Until such a review has
been
undertaken, it strikes us as premature to consider creating yet another,

potentially overlapping Constituency as suggested in C. below.

 The Preliminary Report recommends study of Constituency structures
among the various DNSO Constituencies.  The AIPLA questions whether
consistency of Constituency structures is a desirable goal.  Due to the
varying interests of Constituency’s individual needs.  A
“one-size-fits-all”
approach is not recommended, without addressing some specific overall
objective in doing so.

Individual Domain Name Holders Constituency

 For the reasons noted in the preceding topic, the AIPLA does not
believe
that the establishment of an Individual Domain Name Holders Constituency

would be advisable at this time, if at all. Initially there is a serious
question of
whether there are any different interests to be represented in such a
Constituency than in the existing Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders
Constituency. Until there is a more complete understanding of the
interests
to be represented in the Internet family, precipitous creation of
additional
Constituencies will only lead to demands for an ever increasing number
of narrowly focused Constituencies and an unwieldy Names Council.
_______

All of that, of course, is utter balderdash, and constitutes the "whack
up 'long side
the head" that I mention above.

So the bottom line, as I read this stuff, is that recent efforts to
initiate an IC are
covering old ground already walked on.  Out of that "walk" has evidently
come
a Working Group that is to address the precise issue of the formation of
an
Individual Domain Name Holders Constituency.  So (a) are there any live
bodies
in that WG; (b) if so, who are they; and (c) what are they doing? My own
point
of view is this: I concur wholeheartedly with the part of the motion
which says
"We ask that this process be expedited in this way because we believe it
to be
an oversight not to have included them in the process from the
beginning."  I
wholeheartedly disagree with the AIPLA proposition that "there is a
serious
question of whether there are any different interests to be represented
in such a
Constituency than in the existing Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders
Constituency." I doubt seriously whether the interests of Veronica and
her
parents have any relationship whatever with the (and I'm making this one
up)
The American Society of Lapidastarists."

This whole thing is not about reaching conclusions on some substantive
issue,
on which one can reasonably ask whether or not there is a consensus.  It
is
about whether or not some bunch of people will even have a voice, when
some
substantive issue is to be addressed, and at least under the American
system
that question has only one answer.

Bill Lovell



--
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