[ga] ICANN: already two consensuses: still three more needed
Vint Cerf: Jefsey, Talleyrand was right - when things are complex and tense, it is the time to move carefully. Alejandro: Jefsey, let me enter this fray. I take what seems to me your main point serious, well-thought position papers that address the issues and make concrete, workable, integral proposals. Try to avoid half-baked ideas and generalized lamentations about the present situation or about the past. That is what we need. Concentrate the efforts on them. Charles Shaban: Dear Jefsey and IPC members, I have to disagree with you, I think ICANN mission is more than the IANA, IANA functions is only parts of the ICANN functions. But you are correct that ICANN should define its functions from the beginning and stick to them. (Charles: I agree with you. It depends on what you name ICANN). David Harnand: Alejandro and others, We at New.net absolutely agree with you that what is needed are "concrete, workable, integral proposals" to solve the current problems with DNS governance. Bruce Young: Jefsey, If I assume your intent here is to work on separate point papers outside of the At Large proper, I have no problem with that. In fact I for one welcome as many parallel efforts as possible, as long as they don't overshadow or attempt to replace our At Large efforts. Dear all, from this I see that we need five consensuses and that we already have got two of them. I suggest we proceed in order. 1. first consensus (thanks to Lynn): we all agree now that the present ICANN cannot fulfill its missions, whatever they are. 2. second consensus: we all agree that the propositions of Lynn are not workable as such and that we need to work on them. 3. third (needed) consensus: we need to agree on our target. I propose it is "a consensus on the ICANN missions and organization". With the two consensuses above anything below that (even a BoD vote on a BoD committee proposition) will not be accepted in real life. The key is "consensus" not the proposition in itself. 4. forth (needed) consensus: we need to agree on a consensus among who and how. We need a lasting consensus, so we need *every* positions to be associated to it. It has to be an Internet Community Pact. This is why I suggest three things. - a clean sheet, step by step approach. We know everyone's agenda and feuds, no need to repeat. What we want is to find solutions which satisfy *every* of us. If we fail, there will be no ICANN anymore as "we are the ICANN" as Mike Roberts truly said. - to call on the largest basis of serious and professional people. In protecting ourselves against any capture and disrupters. I therefore called on Vint as a Chair and to all the currently identified stakeholders through any existing gouvernance oriented list. It is NOT to select lists/positions but to be sure people have shown they are concerned and who they physically are. At lowest cost. - to use a working method which can lead to a consensus even if only one single person has initially hat the final proposition. This method consists in a site where every positions can be linked and polled upon. This is the only way to build, confront and reduce into a single consensus serious yet opposed propositions. Polls are to help (as are the debates) but are *no* votes. What is important is the change in the polls. These changes will help progressive, step by step debates and agreements. The real "votes" are by the position writers: in writing eventually a common document. There must be no loser. This has to be a win/win situation for all. 5. ultimate (needed) consensus: what are the ICANN mission, organization and operations. And how to implement it as a consensus. We therefore need three consensus more. A consensus is to discover what we *already* agree upon, should some conditions be met. Once the consensus is uncovered, the decisions are about how to meet that conditions. So please let proceed step by step. 1. consensus number three (now): do we agree that to reach a stable situation we need a global consensus involving all the stake holding positions? That it has to be worked out in a consensual manner? that such a consensus will be a part of the solution? 2. consensus number four (after three is uncovered): do we agree that we want to work in an orderly and professional manner? step by step from clean sheet? with the largest number at hand of genuinely concerned even if opposing people, while preventing any risk of capture and of disruption? using a method permitting the clear presentation of the different positions and their reduction into a common agreement? that such an agreement will most probably depend on actions we will have to discuss, to agree upon and to undertake? and not to be at anyone's expense? 3. Ultimate consensus (not to be discussed now): I do believe it does exist (otherwise why to give it a try). I could document my vision, as others could also do with their own today vision. We "just" have to adjust our visions. I think it can bring a far greater stability and security for all of us, at a drastically reduced cost, with a much broader scope of concerns than "mission creep" and a much larger involvement of absentees, in fostering innovation and in respecting cultures and national interests while permitting large and small operators and entrepreneurs to develop. It will also permit very large steps ahead in term of network architecture, social acceptance and economy development. This is when we are in the dark that we have to hope for the light. IMO, in this case it is not to hope, just to work it out. But since we only are human, it may be complex! Jefsey
|