Re: [ga] Formulating Consensus ??

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

Jefsey and all assembly members,

  Very constructive and informative post/response here Jefsey!
Well done!   I have some supporting and additional comments.
(See below your comments/observations)

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Jeff,
> I am fed-up both with false consensing  - I agree with Joanna/Roeland's
> analysis and I do not believe that the ICANN can be changed - but I am also
> fed-up with this false democracing which serves as an alibi to ICANNers and
> locks us into the ICANN ill designed structures and ways of thinking.

  I must agree for the most part here with this analysis Jefsey.  I believe that
Roeland is right and why we passed his motion just before MdR.

>
>
> We need to get real ourselves. Danny's consensus mechanism conforms to the
> bylaws, MoU and mental sanity: we have to enforce it. We are not a
> democracy.

  No we are not a democracy, but we live in a democratic state(s) for
the most part and those principals as incorporated in the White Paper
and the MoU should be upheld.  Presently they are not and have not been.

> We represent no one: we are concerned and experienced in issues
> which makes us acceptable trustees to others to represent that concerns and
> experiences.

  I am not sure whom you mean by we here?  If you are talking about
the DNSO GA than of course you are quite right.  We (The GA) do
only represent a segment of the DNSO interested parties all be that
representation, fairly broad in scope and areas of interests.

> If these others desagree with us or do not trust us they may
> join. If they are not informed we may help trough outreach.

  Two very good and important points here.  The problems with
"Joining" has been and still remains the blocking of interested
parties or stakeholders in Joining.  Outreach has been poor
as a result as there is little interest in doing outreach when
interested parties or stakeholders are specifically blocked
from joining.  A vicious circle.

> If they do not
> bother this is their problem.

  The problem here is Jefsey, that many have bothered and been rebuffed
and/or completely denied participation.  This is as you know, well
documented.

> SOs are no Parliaments, they are Consulting
> Groups and should be paid or at least supported by their Customer: the BoD.

  Also very much agreed here as well.  But as you also know the ICANN
BoD has refused for various reasons to provide the funding for the DNSO
GA.  Hence an half hearted effort for the DNSO GA to gather it's
own funding.  I hope that this effort will be renewed with the ICANN
BOD's and NC's approval and strong support.

>
>
> In the particular case of Joanna, she may have confused the things so I
> will repeat:
>
> - none of us represent any one. So please et forget about these "who made
> you king?" or "community correct to support in bloc" or "member of the so
> and so community".

  Well I DO represent our [INEGroup] members, stakeholders all.  I cannot
speak of course for Joanna or yourself.  But we [INEGroup] do not represent
the whole of the DNSO as an SO of ICANN.  However we do have a
significant number of members.

>
>
> - when a job must be accomplished we need every concerned competence to
> join: this is the only way to make sure that a consensus may be uncovered.

  Agreed.  Hence my harping on allowing any and all interested parties
or otherwise stakeholders to join the DNSO GA, the At-Large, and
any other constituency group within the ICANN skewed structure.
However again, this has been specifically blocked as you know from
several constituencies, and in particular the DNSO GA.  Now it seems
that the ALSC will be attempting to also block stakeholders/users
from the At-Large as well.

>
> Any other way demonstrates a childish interest in defending petty
> privildeges resulting from ill designed charters.

  Yes this seems to be the problem of late with the BC and the NCC
as we [INEGroup] warned of in the early stages of the formation of
the DNSO and it's constituency groups.

>
>
> - nominations are a good way to push overloaded people into joining and to
> give them some support  in showing that the person's competence over the
> needs, problems and propositions for a "so and so community" is acknowledged.

  Also agreed.  And a fairly good process is available in the DNSO GA.
It must be used, and enforced as I tried to inform Eric, and to a much
lesser extent Joanna over the past two-three days.

>
>
> - when missing competences are identified in a TF/WG, finding it is a
> priroity of the TF/WG.

  Finding it is indeed important.  Encouraging already existing GA
members to participate more and allowing them to participate
openly, and freely in these TF/WG's is of paramount importance.
Again however in the recent past this is not and has not been the
case.  It would appear from the posts to the council@dnso.org
of late that an attempt to keep these TF/WG's limited to
"Certain" GA members is afoot.  That is not doing good
outreach, nor is it a step in the direction of open participation
as a result.

>
>
> So, I repeat to Philip my support of Joanna as a good choice on individual
> registrants issues and I call for an additional competence (like yours?)
> about bulk registrants issues. That Joanna is or is not happy with this,
> adopted some positions or not, agrees or disagrees with me does not change
> her qualifications. Period.

  I don't believe that Joanna has the breadth of background and knowledge
to be such a representative.  This however does not in any way preclude
her from adding other competence to the GA.  And this is why we have
a nomination process structure in the DNSO GA and why I also
suggested using it to assure that we get the representative if need be,
for this "Registrant Representative".   None the less however each
registrant signs a registrant agreement.  That is a legal contract.
As such he/she is their own registrant representative for the Domain
Names in the Name Space to which those domain names are registered.
They and they alone are responsible under the current ICANN
registrant agreements/contracts.  So therefore I have serious doubts
that any one person can adequately represent that many registrants.

>
>
> It will not change either that as a Registrant I happy neither with my
> Registrar future nor with my Registry present. That there are possible ways
> of improvement and that I would prefer to discuss real stuff rather than
> policy - at nomination as well as at TTF management level. Second Period.
>
> Jefsey
>
> On 03:32 28/11/01, Jeff Williams said:
> >Jefsey and all assembly members,
> >
> >   I would have to agree with Jefsey's contention here as well.  Although
> >Joanna may wish to be a candidate to represent registrants in some way
> >within the DNSO or the DNSO GA, a vote should be taken and a nomination
> >period for such a representative to be chosen within the GA.  As the DNSO GA
> >has a process for this to occur I would therefore suggest that first the
> >nominations be taken for such a position within the GA, and than
> >a vote be taken in accordance with that outlined and documented
> >process accordingly if such is approved by Danny's proposal in the
> >form of a motion.
> >
> >Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Phiilp,
> > > Patrick Corliss has brough to the attention of the GA the proposition of
> > > Danny Younger to call on Joanna Lane as a representative of the registrant
> > > community.
> > >
> > > This proposition has not been discussed in the GA and will obviously
> > > creates a debate if you consider Joanna as a "representative of the
> > > registrant community". Yet - as one of those who could object to such a
> > > proposition - I will support it strongly if we could once for all agree on
> > > the concept of representation within the DNSO. I suppose that an agreement
> > > on this matter would also help reducing hours and tons of mailing.
> > >
> > > Joanna has strictly no right whatsoever to represent any community. She
> > > recently left the only existing attempt to structure that community. But
> > > she has every qualification to well represent the interests, concerns,
> > > particular needs and propositions of the individual registrants. As you
> > > have yourself no right to represent the Business Community, but absolutely
> > > legitimately have every qualification to represent the interest, concerns,
> > > etc... of the Business Community.
> > >
> > > I would thefore strongly recommend that once for all we agree that all of
> > > us are no representatives in a democratic way but insuring a trustee
> > > representation towards consensus. And that a consensus is not a vote but a
> > > no major objection by qualified interests that (if the ICANN processus
> > > recently underlined by Danny is respected) a 2/3 vote of a balanced open
> > > group may warranty.
> > >
> > > I would also add that if Joanna is fully qualified, experienced and
> > > competent about individual registrants, as myself also a bulk commercial
> > > registrant (I manage more than 2000 DNs for several portal chains) there
> > > are many issues that individual do not experience that should be
> > > represented. These involves matters like:
> > >
> > > - script management
> > > - payment systems and wire transfers
> > > - status reports - format, accuracy, legal value
> > > - user escrowning
> > > - UDRP insurance protection scheme
> > > - DN Title
> > > - DN usage international notarization
> > > - customership evaluation and compensation
> > > - legal responsibility of the Registrars/Registries
> > > - places of jurisdiction
> > > - name server management and bulk updates procedures and delays
> > > - emergency support - like the ncdnhc current problem
> > > - authentification of the registrant
> > > - TLD procedure harmonization
> > >
> > > I suppose the BC or the ISPC could be a place to find such a representation
> > > with competence.
> > > Best regards
> > >
> > > Jefsey
> > >
> > > On 17:46 26/11/01, Patrick Corliss said:
> > > >On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 13:12:11 +0100, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> > > >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00423.html
> > > >
> > > >Joanna,
> > > >
> > > >Marilyn Cade, chair of the NC task force on transfers, has passed on
> > to me as
> > > >NC Chair, a request from Danny Younger for your participation in the task
> > > >force as a representative of the registrant community but not as a
> > > >representative of the GA.
> > > >
> > > >Typically, the working practice of task forces is that they comprise
> > one rep
> > > >from each Constituency and an optional rep from the GA. They do work
> > to help
> > > >formulate a recommendation to the NC.  In this work the TF themselves may
> > > >consult experts and interested parties.
> > > >
> > > >Before taking this further could you let me know the basis for your
> > > >qualification as a representative of the registrant community ?  In
> > this it
> > > >would be helpful to know the means of outreach to other registrants,
> > how this
> > > >is different to the nature of representation in the GA and how this is
> > > >differentiated against the opinions currently available to the task
> > force from
> > > >its membership.
> > > >
> > > >Many thanks.
> > > >
> > > >Philip Sheppard
> > > >NC Chair
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >--
> > > >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

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