Re: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Chuck,
I couldn't agree more. We are on the same page.
Regards,
Joanna

on 8/17/01 7:58 AM, Gomes, Chuck at cgomes@verisign.com wrote:

> I agree with adding the board, but I believe the board has a little
> different role.  The board ultimately has to evaluate whether community
> consensus has been reached, so they have the responsibility of making a
> judgment of the evidence that is presented.  I am not sure that it is the
> board's task to do the outreach (although that is okay), rather it is the
> boards responsibility to make sure the SO's have done sufficient outreach.
> This is an area though where they can have great influence.  If the evidence
> supporting consensus is weak and/or incomplete, the board should send the
> proposed policy back to the applicable SO for more work.  If they respond in
> this way, that will more quickly motivate the SO's to improve their
> consensus processes.
> 
> One of the trends going on now in the DNSO is to form small task forces or
> committees instead of full fledged working groups.  Considering the problems
> experienced with working groups to date, this is not surprising, but in my
> opinion it is a very bad trend, especially if this is intended to be a
> community-wide consensus development process unless the task forces and
> committees can demonstrate that they have reached out and included the
> broader community of stake holders.
> 
> There appear to be some who think that if the NC has a two-thirds vote it is
> consensus.  This is bogus in my opinion if a full consensus process has not
> preceded the NC vote.  According to the ICANN Bylaws it is the NC's role to
> determine whether or not a consensus was reached, not to vote on what they
> think consensus is with only minimal involvement from the larger community.
> This kind of approach might work if the NC could truly be representative of
> the total community but I do not think it is and it seems highly unlikely
> that it could ever be representative of the global community.  Therefore, it
> follows in my mind that the NC should function as the Bylaws say, as a
> consensus management organization.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joanna Lane [mailto:jo-uk@rcn.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 11:10 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Roeland Meyer'; 'Sotiris Sotiropoulos'; ga
> Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus... Definition?
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joanna Lane [mailto:jo-uk@rcn.com]
>> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 9:52
>> 
>> Do you think that as part of bottom-up ICANN consensus
>> development, that the NC and/or Constituencies and/or the GA should
> consider
>> involving non-members, such as public interest organizations, assimilating
>> and deliberating on their reports prior to making policy recommendations?
> If
>> so, which part of the DNSO is best qualified to undertake this task?
>> Also, do you think that the DNSO should develop and implement a policy for
>> outreach to attract new participants into the bottom-up ICANN consensus
>> development process for reasons of reducing the limitations of the
> currently
>> small subset of participants? If so, how can we tackle this without
> funding?
> 
> on 8/16/01 11:57 AM, Gomes, Chuck at cgomes@verisign.com wrote:
>> Yes, I do think that the DNSO should reach out to nonmembers as
>> part of the consensus process.  The more stakeholders who are represented
> in
>> a consensus process the more valid the consensus will be.  And I think it
> is
>> accurate to conclude that the DNSO does not have adequate involvement by
>> many stakeholders.  At the same time those unrepresented stakeholders may
> be
>> impacted by the policy being considered.  I think that the consensus
>> development process should include steps such as attempting to identify
> key
>> stakeholders and then trying to involve any unrepresented stakeholders in
>> the process.  If they are unresponsive, the efforts can be documented
> along
>> with their unresponsiveness.  Then the NC, in its role of managing the
>> consensus process and in its responsibility to determine whether a
> consensus
>> has been reached, would be able to see that efforts were made to involve
> all
>> stakeholders.  That in my opinion makes the consensus process stronger.
> 
> 
> Chuck,
> 
> Not only the NC, also the Board. Thank you for making this post. Let's have
> more or these, then we can define Outreach as part of the consensus
> development process.
> 
> Regards,
> Joanna

--
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