[ga] RE: Consensus... Definition?

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

Danny,

I don't have any problem at all with the definition you cite from the ICANN
contracts.  But what I see happening is the following: there is a lot of
focus on items (1) and (2) of that definition and very little focus on
making (3) happen in a responsible way.  The votes in (1) by the board and
in (2) by the NC should be based on evidence from (3).  Read (3) carefully.
It's not easy to make (3) happen but I strongly believe it is critical.

Regarding your last suggestion, as part of the Registry, I cannot involve
myself with the NSI Registrar in any ways different than I would any other
registrar.  It would be inappropriate for me to try to communicate the views
of the NSI Registrar just as it would to communicate the views of any other
registrar.  As far as corporate views, I have to leave that to our corporate
policy office.  My role is to represent the VeriSign Registry with regard to
policy and compliance.

Chuck 

-----Original Message-----
From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 10:58 PM
To: ga@dnso.org
Cc: cgomes@verisign.com
Subject: Re: Consensus... Definition? 


Dear Chuck,

While you raise many good points and certainly a good number of valid 
questions, the only definition of consensus that is meaningful in our
current 
discussion is that which appears in the ICANN contracts:

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 specification or policy.

This definition describes two distinct votes, that of the Council and that
of 
the Board -- no other votes are sanctioned within the context of the 
establishment of a consensus policy, other than to perhaps document the 
extent of agreement and disagreement among impacted groups.   

With regard to the contentious issue of transfers, our Names Council has 
still not determined that a policy should be established; they have only 
determined to postpone the issue until Montevideo.  Until such time as the 
Council of the DNSO agrees to take up the issue, and agrees upon a suitable 
methodology to allow for outreach and documentation of support/opposition
and 
agreement/disagreement, we are at the mercy of registrars who may do what 
they will in the absence of a defined policy.

I am however encouraged by your comment that "all parties need to be willing

to constructively participate in the process."  In light of the fact that 
Register.com, NSI Registrar and NameSecure have expressed their non-support 
of the recent Registrar Constituency Statement on Transfers, would you be 
willing to succinctly put forth the views of your firm regarding this 
constituency statement?

Thank you for your earlier well-considered comments on the consensus
process.

Best regards,
Danny Younger
--
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