RE: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure

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

Kent,

I didn't say task forces were inappropriate. I simply do not believe they
are sufficient at least as far as they have recently been designed.  Correct
me if I am wrong but I have never seen them produce the following to any
reasonable degree of completeness: "(3) a
>   written report and supporting materials (which must include all
>   substantive submissions to the Supporting Organization 
> relating to the
>   proposal) that (i) documents the extent of agreement and 
> disagreement
>   among impacted groups, (ii) documents the outreach process used to
>   seek to achieve adequate representation of the views of groups that
>   are likely to be impacted, and (iii) documents the nature and
>   intensity of reasoned support and opposition to the 
> proposed policy."

Also, the fact remains that the working groups were not given any meaningful
guidelines with regard to what they should do so the evaluation by the NC
ended up being more subjective than objective.  To me, that is extremely
undesirable.  And that tells me that the NC did very little to manage the
consensus process.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:kent@songbird.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 10:48 AM
> To: [ga]
> Subject: Re: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure
> 
> 
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 08:54:10AM -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > Patrick,
> > 
> > I also think Danny did a very good job in discussing 
> consensus in the
> > message to reference below.  In fact I personally 
> complemented him in this
> > regard after first reading it.
> > 
> > But, whereas I do believe that structurally changes could 
> definitely improve
> > the consensus development process, I do not agree that the 
> problems are
> > primarily structural versus procedural.  Regardless of what 
> structural
> > changes are made, if clearly defined processes and 
> procedures are not put
> > into place, we will find ourselves right back where we are 
> now.  In a global
> > and hugely diverse environment like the Internet, consensus 
> will always be
> > hard to reach.  Therefore, if there are not clearly defined 
> policies and
> > procedures with regard to what should be expected outcomes 
> of the consensus
> > development efforts, it seems highly unlikely that it will 
> be successful.  I
> > personally believe that is why many people currently are 
> trying to take
> > shortcuts with regard to consensus development (e.g., task 
> forces).  They
> > are easier and take less effort and it's not too hard to 
> convince some
> > people that they are legitimate, but in reality they are a 
> far cry from what
> > the bylaws and contracts between ICANN and registries demand.
> 
> That is, NSI/VSGN will feel free to ignore whatever 
> conclusions may come
> from any task force of the DNSO.  
> 
> That's very convenient for VSGN, but I don't accept your 
> premise.  Task
> forces and the like are clearly contemplated in the bylaws:
> 
>   b) The NC is responsible for the management of the 
> consensus building
>   process of the DNSO.  It shall adopt such procedures and policies as
>   it sees fit to carry out that responsibility, including the
>   designation of such research or drafting committees, working groups
>   and other bodies of the GA as it determines are appropriate to carry
>   out the substantive work of the DNSO.
> 
> And are consistent with the relevant text from the contract:
> 
>   1.  "Consensus Policies" are those specifications or policies
>   established based on a consensus among Internet stakeholders
>   represented in the ICANN process, as demonstrated by (1) 
> action of the
>   ICANN Board of Directors establishing the specification or 
> policy, (2)
>   a recommendation, adopted by at least a two-thirds vote of 
> the council
>   of the ICANN Supporting Organization to which the matter is 
> delegated,
>   that the specification or policy should be established, and (3) a
>   written report and supporting materials (which must include all
>   substantive submissions to the Supporting Organization 
> relating to the
>   proposal) that (i) documents the extent of agreement and 
> disagreement
>   among impacted groups, (ii) documents the outreach process used to
>   seek to achieve adequate representation of the views of groups that
>   are likely to be impacted, and (iii) documents the nature and
>   intensity of reasoned support and opposition to the 
> proposed policy. 
> 
> Working groups, such as described in the WG-D report, have simply not
> worked out as a means of generating substantive work across a broad
> population -- they inevitably seem to degenerate to a small core of 
> contentious people who drive away all other participants, and then 
> produce a report that has a very narrow base.  (It pains me to say 
> this, because I am a big fan of the IETF model -- I do hope 
> that in the 
> long run, as ICANN becomes more and more mundane, that WGs will be 
> possible.  But it is undeniably true that they have not 
> worked well so 
> far.) 
> 
> Task forces and so on were developed as a means of getting productive
> work done in a very noisy and contentious environment, and they are
> making progress.  Surveys and similar instruments, though they have
> their own faults, are proving to be a much more objective and useful
> means of gauging community sentiment than are noisy mailing lists. 
> 
> In sum, I think the claims you are making are groundless.  Finding
> consensus policies is indeed very difficult work, but the processes
> currently in use meet both the terms of the ICANN bylaws and the terms
> of the registry contracts, and, though progress is slow, consensus
> policies, as defined in the bylaws and contracts, are being developed.
> 
> It would of course be convenient for VSGN to be able to ignore those 
> policies at whim, so I can understand why it would be in 
> their interest 
> to cast the undeniable noise as a "failure of consensus".
> 
> -- 
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> 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