Re: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure

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

marc and all assembly members,

  Yes I cought the oxymoran in Chucks comment (See below)
also...  Seems others have not however...

  So I suppose the onely question reamaining is do we try to fix
ICANN or do we seek to replace it and start all over again?

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> Thank you. I am glad that one of the major stakeholders, if not THE major,
> recognizes that all this ICANN community talk is fake.
>
> --
> Marc@Schneiders.ORG
>
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2001, at 10:14 [=GMT-0500], Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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