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

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

I apologize if this takes me over my posting limit.  I haven't kept count
and didn't take the time to check.

A root problem of this whole issue is the heavy reliance on voting to
presumably reach consensus.  It is very efficient but often does not really
produce consensus.

Ideally, the various stakeholders would work together to come up with a
position that all could support even if it is not their ideal position.  But
that kind of process is much more time consuming on everyone's part.  So
voting is an easy way around it, even if it doesn't really produce
consensus.

As long as voting is used as the predominant method, it seems reasonable
that neither registries/registrars nor users should be able to dominate the
process and thereby eliminate any need to work on acceptable compromises
that hopefully would have broader benefit than just meeting the needs of a
small group that happens to control the voting block.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:fausett@lextext.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 1:59 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; DNSO General Assembly
> Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Comment from the gTLD Registry Constituency
> 
> 
> 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