RE: [wg-review] We are in the starting line......

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> > The DNSO as a body is responsible not merely for
> > "coordination" but also
> > for the *origination* of policy pertaining to DNS.  The initiative for
> > such policy might come from within the DNSO itself...

> I agree. However, the current structure limits the DNSO exactly to
> coordination. DNSO can only "recommend" to the BoD and the DNSO NC isn't
> responsive to the DNSO GA at all.

Take a look at Article VI Section 2(b) of the ICANN bylaws - it says quite
clearly that Supporting Organizations have a "primary" responsibility to
develop policy.

Besides, ICANN is still fresh and pliable and ought not to be considered
cast into the concrete of ages of ossified processes and limitations.  No
reason to unnecessarily nail our foot to the floor and end up not being
able to go anywhere - except in small circles.


> > We ought to dispense the concept of "stakeholders" -
> > particularly as some
> > consider that concept to be one of the reasons why the DNSO
> > is stumbling.
>
> I disagree, just because some don't have either the training or the desire
> to understand what a stakeholder is strictly defined to be, doen't mean that
> the language is no good. "Stakeholders" are precisely those that are
> interested.

The reason I don't like the word is that it has been used as a catchphrase
to allow third parties to dictate who does have and who does not have a
"stake"  and thus allow those third parties to dictate who may participate
and to what degree.

Generally, I prefer for people to make their own choice about whether they
have an interest in an matter or not.

And I do dislike the implicit grouping of people into "constituencies" on
the basis of broad perceptions by third parties of some common interest -
we all know that there are subtle differences of opinion that often put
groups of people who would otherwise seem to have common ground into
opposition to one another.  We ought to build mechanisms that permit fluid
formation - and disintegration - of coalitions.

The only way I see to do that is to have a "one person, one vote" system -
that way people can join together as they see fit.

If people want to form temporary "constituencies" that's fine by me, as
long as the power of that constituency is measured exclusively by the
number of votes it can get to support its position.

So, if enough folks decide that they want to get together to form an
"Intellectual Property" constituency - that's their choice - but the power
of that constituency would be exactly the number of individual voters
that it can convince of the merits of its position.

Since we have an amazingly short fuse to complete work - I do wonder
whether we ought to focus on the simple question: Should the DNSO abandon
the existing "constituency" structure and replace it with something that
allows the more fluid aggregation of parties based on their own
self-perception of what best serves their interests?


> > > 3. Procedures and approaches
...
> > At this point I'd like to inject a plea for semi-formalized processes,
> > along the lines of those suggested by Mark Langston, to keep this
> > discussion from going off into the weeds.
>
> Since I am out-of-town, could you please send the actual body of MArk
> Langston's text or attachemtn?

http://www.bitshift.org/rror.shtml


> Karl, I know that this is what you originally proposed in th ORSC draft
> <http://www.dnso.net/orsc-dnso.htm>

Actually, I had very little to do with the ORSC submission to NTIA during
those days before ICANN was actually formed.

My work was primarily with the Boston Working Group, you can see what we
sent to NTIA at http://www.cavebear.com/bwg/

		--karl--