RE: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure

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

I don't disagree with any of the arguments about the failure of the
consensus system within ICANN but I attribute that to the fact that no valid
consensus development process has ever been put into place.  I also
recognize that such a task would be very challenging.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandy Harris [mailto:sandy@storm.ca]
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 3:55 PM
> To: [ga]
> Subject: Re: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure
> 
> 
> Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > 
> > I tend to agree with Patrick Greenwell. But, that is the 
> essence of why I
> > have been insisting on a voting/polling system for the past 
> year. Not only
> > that, but the "consensus" system has been much abused.
> 
> Yes, indeed.
> 
> > It has very poor protection against dishonest people and bad actors.
> 
> I'm not convinced that the problems are inherent in the 
> consensus system.
> 
> Open (and archived) discussions provide potent weapons for both sides
> in any battle, but I'm convinced the honest ones can win. 
> 
> I think we currently have the worst of both worlds -- a system that
> claims to be "bottom-up" and "consensus-based" but does not achieve
> either of those goals and provides excuses for those who want 
> to prevent
> appropriate representation of other interests. 
> 
> Also, we have various attempts to define consensus in some bogus way
> like such-and-such a percentage in a vote, or to construct something
> you can call consensus out of thin air.
> 
> Besides, the system is not supposed to run entirely by consensus. The
> Board uses votes, and that would be fine if the board were 
> appropriately
> constituted. We don't need a polling system here anything like as much
> as we need nine elected At Large board members actually seated. 
> 
> > That is essentially why US Congress doesn't use it, it has 
> no credibility.
> 
> The trouble with voting and polls is that the people doing 
> the voting here
> aren't representative. In a congress or parliament you have 
> at least an
> attempt at that -- each member represents some specific group 
> of voters 
> and there's some attempt at fairness, whether equal 
> population in each 
> riding or a proportional representation system or two 
> senators per state
> or ... 
> 
> If a measure achieves a majority in Congress, there's at 
> least some hope
> that the voting bears some relation to the will of the people. If not,
> perhaps you can throw them out next election.
> 
> Here you cannot tell who anyone represents. Some have credible claims
> based on elections, e.g. Karl, but those elections can certainly be
> criticised. Other claims are far more nebulous. Does Joop speak for
> domain name owners? Danny for dot commoners? Jeff for thousands of 
> people? Others for their companies, or industries, or parts of the 
> domain business? 
> 
> Who am I speaking for? I certainly hope it's not only for myself, that
> I'm working toward the good of the whole community, but I 
> cannot claim 
> to represent anyone.
> 
> Given that, it becomes not at all clear what any vote here means.
> There is, as far as I can see, no reason to imagine that something 
> that achieves a majority in the GA has broad support among users
> or any other relevant group.
> --
> 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
> 
--
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