Re[2]: [ga] Motion to Condemn the Propsed "theft" of the .BIZ tldby ICANN

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

In a rare moment  :)

I agree with Bill's statement.

Sunday, June 24, 2001, 4:45:18 PM, William S. Lovell wrote:

> My wife spent 2 years in Africa in the Peace Corps, and in the course
> of all that learned quite a bit about underdeveloped countries. One of
> the things that she learned was that it makes little sense just to throw in
> some voting procedure in a country that has had no experience with
> democratic processes.  The GA is an underdeveloped country.

> In consecutive posts here, I see two different meanings of the term
> "consensus;" that of Sotiris I believe not to be correct. Jefsey raises
> the issue of whether a domain name space policy should be drafted.
> This post concurs that it should be discussed.  Sotiris says "Consensus
> is anything we agree is important enough to engage in discussing among
> ourselves," when in fact a consensus represents a conclusion on an
> issue, not just the idea of discussing it.  And not to knock any of these
> ideas as such, we see Joanna Lane proposing methods for getting some
> proposal raised to the stage of being given consideration by the GA;
> Eric Dierker evidently thinks that no opposition means approval,
> Earl Heather says, in effect, "let's vote right now," etc., etc., the
> point being that everyone is popping out with ad hoc procedural
> means and interpretations, when in fact the DNSO, through the AG
> Chair, now has procedures established on how to bring things to a
> proper vote within the GA.  The people popping out with all these
> various notions, so far as I can tell, all come from developed countries
> that have a tradition of democratic processes, with all their rules for
> how things are done, and why these same people forget everything
> they know and want to fly the GA by the seats of their respective pants
> is quite beyond me.

> One does not just throw in a motion and then complain that there has
> been no action on it. As I noted earlier, when someone does that, one
> can still respond with a "second" or whatever, just to keep the thing
> moving, so long as one realizes that there will be no official "vote"
> that comes out of such a method. But whether started by that means,
> or by Jefsey saying we need such and such, that is not the time to
> re-invent the wheel.  That is the time either to discuss the merits of
> the proposal ("yes, we should draft a policy statement;" "no, we
> don't want a policy statement") or else say "trivia, we're not
> interested, let's not get into that." If the merits are addressed, then
> some consensus may or may not emerge, but at least something
> of substance would have been addressed. It is the responses to
> the merits of a proposal that determine whether any consensus
> will emerge, and whether the thing should be discussed should
> not be determined by a debate on THAT -- that determination is
> made operationally: either people start to discuss, or they don't,
> and that's the end of it unless something in the way of a consensus
> is seen to emerge, at which time there is something of substance
> that the Chair could recognize and then advance into the formal
> DNSO procedure.

> The need to invent new procedures every time some new thing is
> dropped into the GA hat ranks third with me among the things that
> paralyze the GA (the first being flame wars, the second being those
> who attempt to take over the GA with their personal agendas, often
> of the hair-brained variety, and around which some little clique of
> "yeay- sayers" is collected for a time until that distraction disappears).
> The common result of all of these is fragmentation: everyone is running
> in different directions all at once, and simply cannot stay on point on
> any single issue long enough to get anywhere. Indeed, the only
> mechanism that can serve to prevent that is the specific DNSO
> voting procedure that has the necessary degree of formality (one
> must register to vote, one must then vote, etc.) to direct, at least
> for the moment, the attention of everyone to some one thing on
> which a decision must be made.

> In other words, instead of re-hashing for the nth time how to
> discuss, why not JUST DISCUSS?  I don't get up every morning
> and re-instruct myself on how to walk,  how to breathe, or what
> I'm supposed to do in the bathroom.

> As Nike would say, "Just Do It."

> Bill Lovell

> Sandy Harris wrote:

>> Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear Sandy,
>> > there are three different things here.
>> > 1) a consensus about the need of a global name space policy to be draft.
>>
>> Certainly we need to discuss name space policy. That's what the GA is for.
>>
>> However, I doubt that currently, or anytime soon, we have the consensus
>> required for a clear policy formulation. Documents setting out various
>> non-consensus views are certainly possible, but it is not clear that we
>> need more of them :-).
>>
>> Some one might even tackle writing a document giving a statement of the
>> issues without embracing any particular solution. That would be tricky.
>> I'm not sure how useful it would be.
>>
>> > I suppose you do not agree that the "historic" iCANN policy on the
>> > matter is to be drafter by Lynn alone.
>>
>> No, though I do feel he's made a fair statement of that policy.
>>
>> > The consensus is not on the policy but on the
>> > need to discuss it. At least I hope so since for three months every thing
>> > is made to impeach that?
>> >
>> > 2) a vote of the Members of the DNSO about a political move. There is no
>> > consensus reasearch. This is only a motion to be voted. Like we voted last
>> > year against the Cybersquatters? How can you oppose a vote?
>>
>> As I said, without consenus the vote is pointless.
>>
>> If we were a parliament of some sort, composed of elected representatives
>> of the net.community, voting would make sense. For a self-selected body
>> composed of whoever knows about ICANN and cares enough to be here, it makes
>> none at all.
>>
>> Perhaps you've encountered the terms 'bolshevik' and menshevik'? They
>> originally meany 'majority' and 'minority', but acquired another meaning
>> when Lenin's faction won some vote at a party congress and began using
>> the labels for themselves and their opponents. Having a vote when there's
>> no consensus might encourage use of that sort of propaganda manouevre
>> here.
>> --
>> 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

> --
> Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
> to the reader may possibly be explained at:
> "WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
> GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm


> --
> 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



-- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

--
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