Re: [wg-d] NC Elections. Was: ga] DNSO General Assembly - Revised

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Mon, Aug 16, 1999 at 04:06:22PM -0700, Karl Auerbach wrote:
>>> "The NC is responsible for the management of the consensus building
>>> process of the DNSO."
>> 
>> A statement that "X is responsible for Y" does not mean that X has no
>> other responsibilities.
> 
> Yes.  Now would you please cite the authority for those "other
> responsibilities."

Oh, I get it now.  We are playing the "rock game" (*).  Ah well.  

[...]

> > In fact, of course, the responsibilities and powers of the NC are
> > spelled out in detail in a number of specific provisions in the
> > Bylaws, some of which I referenced.  For example, the NC has the
> > responsibility for passing recommendations to the ICANN Board -- that
> > is not "managing the consensus process".
> 
> Perhaps you ought to read full sentences instead of picking phrases.  The
> NC's responsibility to pass things to the ICANN board is in the context of
> the NC measuring consensus.  Things are forwarded up only if the NC finds
> a certain degree of consensus.

Whatever.  I see "management of the consensus process" and "passing
results to the Board" as two separate tasks.  For example, in common
usage, a line manager has responsibility for managing the employees
under him, and also has a responsibility to accurately report things
concerning his employees to his boss.  One could term the latter
activity as part of managing employees -- I wouldn't, but I realize 
that is a possible meaning.

The point is that a particular responsibility (passing
recommendations on to the board) is spelled out in the bylaws as a
distinct item.  Whether it is assumed to fall under the general
phrase "managing consensus" or not is not the issue -- the issue is
the list of specific responsibilities that are spelled out.  In other
words, you are apparently hinging your entire interpretation of the
bylaws on a bunch of implicit assumptions about what the word
"manage" means.

I am not.  I realize that the word "manage" is not precisely defined,
(**) and I am looking at the spelled-out responsibilities for further
guidance as to what the NC can do.  I am now, thanks to the fact that
I have to research Roberts Rules, also looking at the default rules
of parliamentary procedure.  Finally, I am using common sense.

All of these point to the same conclusion: The NC has significant
responsibility and authority.  It can indeed rewrite a proposal (or,
effect the rewriting of a proposal in a manner more to its liking,
which is effectively the same thing), vote on the result, and pass it
to the Board.  Whether it would be wise for it to do that, or 
whether the Board would accept it if there were significant 
objections, are other questions entirely.  But it is left to the 
judgement of the NC.

> It's pretty clear language in the bylaws

I agree.  I find it amusing that just a couple of messages ago you
were complaining about how poorly written they were.  :-)

[...]

> > It also has the
> > responsibility (and the power) to vote on proposals
> 
> Citation please.

section 2d, of course:

  (d) If two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the NC determine that the
  DNSO process has produced a community consensus, that consensus
  position shall be forwarded to the Board as a consensus
  recommendation, along with all materials or other information that
  could reasonably be relevant to the Board's review of that
  determination, including (but not limited to) the dissenting
  statement(s) of any member(s) of the NC.  If more than one-half
  (1/2) but less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the NC
  determine that the DNSO process has produced a community consensus,
  that position may be forwarded to the Board as a NC recommendation,
  along with statements of majority and minority views, and any
  separate or dissenting statement(s) of any member(s) of the NC. 

The last sentence is the most important, of course, and I have already 
referenced it:

  Any proposed recommendation that is not supported by an affirmative
  vote of one-half (1/2) of the members of the NC may be returned to
  the body from which it originated, or may be assigned to a new
  body, for further work. 

Anyway, it's obvious that you are just playing the rock game now (*),
and sending me back to get yet another citation.  In fact, I have
documented everything I have said.  It is perfectly clear that the NC
can do the things I claimed.  It appears that you are applying the
same reality distortion field to this subject that you did on the
actions of the IAB vis a vis IETF working groups, and it is pointless
to continue discussion when there are such divergent views of
reality. 

================================================================
(*)"Get me a rock!"  "Here's a rock."  "I don't like that one, get 
me another!"

(**) If we follow the dictionary definition of "manage", your thesis 
falls apart completely.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain