Re: [wg-d] WG Principles

[Elisabeth PORTENEUVE <Elisabeth.PORTENEUVE@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

Karl wrote:
> 
> > >I think it would be nice though for the Working Group itself to report to 
> > >the Names Council as to whether the WG believes that the elusive thing 
> > >called "consensus" exists. Perhaps this group can discern a better way to 
> > >allow that to happen.
> > 
> > That's an interesting idea.  Mechanisms, anyone?
> 
> The working groups should send proposals *only* to the GA (well, they
> could send a copy to the NC to be polite).  The NC is there merely to
> coordinate, the NC is a limited group of selectees who get their power by
> filling ICANN board seats (the GA can't.)
> 
> As for "consensus".  As they say "That dog won't hunt." -- Counting votes
> on specific proposals is not that hard a thing to do. And it avoids a lot
> of creative fantasising about what is "the consensus".
> 
> As for WG and GA membership -- the doors should be open to anyone who is
> not disruptive.  We already have enough exclusionary policies laced
> through ICANN, let's have a breath of fresh air and be inclusive.
> 
> 		--karl--
> 
==> I am a little bit annoyed.

    From some contributions to this list, it may be understood
    that the Constituencies should not be taken into account.

    There is more participants in the DNSO that only the GA,
    and many of them rely on their representatives to the NC.

    The GA is essential, because it is *the* forum for DNSO
    debate, where Constituencies meet another Constituencies,
    and where anybody can join, even "political refugees" 
    from some constituencies.
    But Constituencies are also essential element, and they 
    are represented by the elected delegates in the NC.

    Some equilibrum is needed.
    There is not "us" and "them" -- we are all together.

    Elisabeth