Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency

[Bret Fausett <fausett@lextext.com>]

One thing this dialogue underscores is the wisdom behind the original idea
of "consensus." "Consensus," at least as I've always understood it, looks
for agreement among impacted/self-interested parties and so, implicitly,
weighs the views of those impacted by an issue more heavily than those who
are not. The current debate -- between two fixed ideas of how to divide
votes -- rests on the false assumption that a single correct division exists
for every issue that comes before the GNSO.

A better process would weigh registry and registrar interests more heavily
on an issue in which registry/registrar interests predominate (e.g. policy
solutions for "add storms") and user interests more heavily when their
interests predominate (e.g. UDRP). Equal weighting would be appropriate some
of the time too. That kind of flexible process, however, requires the
various constituencies to show a degree of self-awareness about when and how
they are impacted that we haven't yet seen.

The ERC tries to solve the problem by giving two sets of interests equal
votes and allowing NomComm-appointed Council members to tip the balance.
Presumably, one of the things that will guide the NomComm members' votes is
an independent sense of which camp is more affected by the outcomes. Is
there a better solution than appointing three baby-sitters to the Names
Council? I would hope so. I hear both camps essentially arguing for the same
thing: a desire for a voice proportionate to the size and nature of the
problem under discussion. Surely there's a way of solving that problem on
which all constituencies could agree.

           -- Bret

--
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