Re: [registrars] Consensus Historical Analysis

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

Well said - I couldn't agree more with your recommendations in the last two
para's...

-rwr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>
To: <registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 4:05 PM
Subject: [registrars] Consensus Historical Analysis


> As one of the "framers" of the original Constituency by-laws back in
Berlin
> 1999, I thought it beneficial to share with everyone some previous
> discussions about consensus and representation within the constituency.
>
> When the constituency was first formed, the concept of one registrar-one
> vote was deeply entrenched into our discussion for obvious reasons, at
that
> time NSI had a 100% of the market. Over the years the one vote per
registrar
> regardless of size has remained a founding principle of the constituency.
> The only deviation to this principle has surfaced in connection with the
> recent consolidation with some registrars holding multiple accreditations.
> As was originally voted upon last year and reaffirmed in the vote taken at
> the start of the Dulles meeting, the spirit of original by-laws remains,
one
> vote per registrar parent company, regardless of the number of its
> subsidiaries or accreditations it may acquire through the continued
> consolidation occurring within the industry.
>
> Regarding "consensus" there have been extensive discussion in the past
> within the constituency and ICANN about what magical number represents
> consensus. The answer unfortunately is that consensus is another ambiguous
> ICANN term that is manipulated to conform to the definition of the
> party(ies) advancing their particular interest.
>
> Because of this historical quagmire, and my experiences in Melbourne
> Australia, I have tried to avoid using the term consensus completely and
> instead just report the FACTS, i.e. X number of undersigned registrars
> support this statement. I then believe it useful to reference the total
> number of registrars within the constituency and how many voted for a
> baseline reference.
>
> After the Stockholm vote of 23-2 on the AUTOACK policy, the two minority
> registrars undertook a new twist to further convolute the consensus debate
> by arguing the baseline criteria should not be just registrars within the
> constituency but all ICANN accredited registrars.
>
> Therefore the Net-Net. Rick should take a vote on a particular paper and
> then report the results in detail.
>
> I believe this allows Rick to move forward with the task at hand instead
of
> spinning his wheels where others have in the past.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>