Re: [wg-review] 7. [Names Council] Report requested by NC

["Bret A. Fausett" <baf@fausett.com>]

> · Is the Names Council fulfilling its responsibility to steer and manage the
> DNSO consensus process, or can this be improved?

One of the central problems with the consensus building process -- and we
discussed this issue in WG-D with no resolution -- is the fact that there is
no mechanism that encourages any party to compromise.

What we've seen in the DNSO to date are various interest groups putting
forth party-line positions to the WGs, the NC, and the Board. There has been
virtually no attempt to forge consensus or seek compromise among the
participants themselves. While the NC and Board are supposed to "recognize"
consensus among the participants, they have too often been left to act as
judge of how best to balance competing interests.

When the Board or NC judges the merits of competing proposals, it only
compounds the problem. The participants quickly learn that they need not
speak directly to those who oppose them -- only to those who will judge
them. Position papers have become the end-product, not the starting points
for a dialogue about how to reach compromise.

In the current structure, there is really no one to *broker* a compromise.
"Peacemaking" is time-intensive work. Who is going to run shuttle diplomacy
among the various constituencies and interested parties, honing draft
policies until they really reflect a consensus? Is that the WG Chair's
responsibility? The NCs? Is it unrealistic to expect volunteer participants
to shoulder this task?

It's also not clear that there is any incentive for some to compromise, even
if we solved the problems noted above. In other industry self-regulatory
schemes, there is the threat of unilateral action by the government
regulator if the community does not take some action. The resulting
uncertainty about what the regulator may do prompts the community to come
together to present a consensus position.

In our case, however, ICANN cannot act absent community consensus. This
removes the threat of unilateral regulatory intervention in its entirety.
Those who benefit from maintaining the status quo have absolutely no
incentive to compromise, ever.

          -- Bret