Re: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Patrick G and all assembly members,

  Got to agree with Oatrick Greenwell here to a very great degree.
It has always been our [INEGroup's] Mantra that the constituency
model or "ICANN Constituencies" just doesn't work and should be
abolished.  >;)  Chuck also makes a good point as well in a later post
that cross-SO collaboration is possibly a method by which communications
between these "ICANN Constituencies" can work together for
developing and determining a consensus.  However Patrick G. has
it right that unless or until consensus can be measured by all
stakeholders and interested parties as put forth in the MoU and
White paper, there can be NO consensus.  Hence stakeholders
and Interested parties must be able to vote.  This too has always
been our {INEGRoup's] mantra.  It seems now some are beginning to
come around to this/these views.

Patrick Greenwell wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Nov 2001, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> > Patrick,
> >
> > I looks to me like we are in fairly close agreement.  I also believe that
> > separating the suppliers from the users is a useful idea.  I understand, as
> > Roland points out in a separate post, that there is no perfect way to
> > separate producers from users.  But I believe that one of the complications
> > in the current DNSO model that makes it very difficult for the consensus
> > process to work is the fact that users and producers are in the same SO.
>
> (different Patrick responding :-) ):
>
> I think that you'll find and what we have borne witness to is that when
> you have a large group of divergent interests consensus simply does not
> work(gasp.) Organizations like the IETF work (mostly) because while you
> have a large group of people they are virtually all "technical" and limit
> the scope of their work to specific proctocols/specifications for specific
> technologies.
>
> ICANN is a much different beast than the IETF. Simply labeling one group
> "suppliers" and the other "consumers" is an extreme oversimplification of
> the the issue. What I as a consumer want may be markedly different than
> what a farmer in Iowa wants, with a completely different set of
> motivations and goals. Lumping us both in a consumer category trying to
> use vehicle of "consensus" is unlikely to work very well, just like it
> hasn't worked very well for ICANN as an organization.
>
> The term "consensus" has been horribly abused to mean whatever agenda the
> majority of the ICANN board, staff, and people with very deep pockets want
> (IP interests, Neustar, et. al.) UDRP, ICP3, countless denials for
> valid reconsideration claims, the list goes on and on.
>
> Whenever I hear the word consensus now even outside of the confines of ICANNs
> little world I cringe.
>
> We would be best served by establishing a set of workable voting
> systems/processes, doing away with the lie of "consensus" that has
> permeated ICANN as well as the constant gerrymandering the occurs on a
> daily basis dedicated to keeping people *out* rather than bringing them
> in.
>
> I suffer no illusion that any of this will happen of course.
>
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>                                Patrick Greenwell
>        Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers.
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
>
> --
> 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