Re: [ga] RE: Consensus development process

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

on 11/25/01 9:34 AM, Gomes, Chuck at cgomes@verisign.com wrote:

> Danny,
> 
> Please show me the consensus development process and then help me understand
> its legitimacy in terms of representation of all stakeholders, in terms of
> documentation of of both proponents and those who disagree, in terms of
> effective outreach, etc.  All I have seen are efforts to skirt around such a
> process.  Working Group D made a good start at identifying what needed to be
> done, but little has been done to follow up on that work.
> 
> Chuck
>

I have resisted this thread up till now because I am in no way claiming that
work on a concrete consensus building mechanism, suitable for an online
general assembly such as the DNSO GA, as undertaken by myself and co-author
Bill Lovell over the last 6 months, namely the Best Practices project, is in
any way "valid" in the sense that it is officially up and running, when
clearly it is not, (indeed the thing is not yet finished), but please....it
is not true to say that nothing has been done since WG-D.

Challenging work such as this takes time, but it *is* going on quietly in
the background, and I would not want you to overlook the fact that the first
draft of Parts I, II, III (and shortly IV) are already published on the DNSO
website in Documents of the GA, at the URLs noted in my signature file.

Comments received when this work was originally released in August were very
encouraging, and he may have forgotten that I specifically referred to Chuck
Gomes for his personal views at that time, and since then, we have been
developing the next stage, nad have accomodated various suggestions from the
community received at that time, all to result in a Version 2, that will be
released shortly. 

This project does not conflict with WG-D or with Danny's list of items
needed for "consensus" as per his post to the NC of October 8th recently
reposted here, indeed it builds upon it, but it has to be said that it
certainly does conflict with any spurious suggestion that consensus can be
defined by a 2/3 vote of the Names Council, or indeed any other method that
does not stand up to even casual scrutiny by a court of law. Since Bill is
an attorney, we have that angle covered.

Most recently, we have been working on a detailed description of the
oversight responsibilities of the Secretariat in seeing the process through,
but have not involved the list in the minutae because not only is it a
flexible system (you can use the parts you need and leave aside other
options), but also, there will be plenty of time later for public comment,
and further revisions can be made after that, as and when necessary.

Ultimately, BP may not be the *only* valid consensus procedure used by the
ICANN community, but it certainly will be *one*, and the first of its kind
to produce a map of the route one actually needs to travel from point A to
point Z.

Regards,

Joanna

The URLs for Best Practices: DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA")
Part I: 
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II: 
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires installing the Adobe Acrobat
Reader, which is available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)



 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 11:51 PM
>> To: ga@dnso.org
>> Cc: cgomes@verisign.com
>> Subject: Consensus development process
>> 
>> 
>> Chuck Gomes writes that "no valid consensus development
>> process has ever been
>> put into place."  I find this comment somewhat troubling at a
>> time when the 
>> Names Council has established a Task Force charged with
>> arriving at a binding
>> consensus policy regarding the issue of transfers.
>> 
>> The last thing that any registrant wants is to have a
>> disgruntled set of
>> registrars challenge a consensus determination on this matter
>> and further 
>> delay efforts at resolution of an ongoing problem.  If Chuck
>> has legitimate 
>> concerns regarding the consensus development process, now
>> would be the time
>> to air those specific concerns so that we can move forward
>> properly and 
>> finally put this issue behind us.
>> 
>> 
> --
> 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