[wg-review] View from here

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

Folks - this group is spinning in circles.

Here's what I am drawing from the discussion:

1. My sense is that there is a strong belief that the DNSO is a very sick
puppy and needs some serious care.  Personally I'd like to take a vote on
that question.  However the pro-"consensus" faction obviously won't mind
if I simply declare that there is overwhelming consensus on this point.

2. From where I sit the notion of "pay to play" is quite troubling, being
nothing more than a hidden poll tax.  As Bret pointed out, the business
interests (who can easily pay the fees to participate) recoup those fees
from the users of the net who thus end up paying twice.

There is a legitimate question of how one pays for DNSO activities.  (My
own personal belief is that the DNSO ought to be funded out of the domain
registration revenues system received by ICANN.  But a pre-condition to
that would be the re-establishment of the DNSO as a well-functioning
policy organ.)

3. As for constituencies - I have not seen a compelling justification to
retain pre-defined "constituencies" with pre-allocated voting powers.
The closest thing to a justification that I have seen is the argument that
there are many who do not pariticpate and who need someone to act as their
proxy voice.  I don't mind that structure as long as the proxy voice is
just that, a voice, and that the actual votes still come from individual
people (even corporations need to manifest their actions through the acts
of people.)

4. Regarding the issue of process and "consensus":  I continue to find
"consensus" to be an unaccountable procedure that gives the
consensus-finder an excessive degree of uncontrolled power.  In bodies
with a long institutional memory that might work, but we have seen many
examples in ICANN of abusive declarations of "consensus".

With respect to this issue of "consensus" - I do have a particularly
distinct viewpoint:  Being a member of the ICANN Board of Directors I have
to evaluate the credibility of the materials I receive.  And given the
current lack of formality of DNSO processes, I am not at all comfortable
giving credence to the work of the DNSO.  I'd feel much better if there
were mildely formalized procedures such as those suggested in:

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

5. As for the thought that the General Assembly and IDNO and ICANN
At-Large are somehow overlapping: Yes, there is overlapping membership,
but the roles of each group are distinct.

I personally find the GA to be a better way to form the fluid coalition
structure that I prefer over the existing pre-ordained "constituency"
structure.  Moreover, the GA is essentially powerless today.

If contituencies remain then I see no alternative to a constituency that
for individuals who own domain names.  (Similarly, I would see a need for
constituencies for community groups, religious organizations, K12
educational bodies, post K12 educational bodies, arts/music organizations,
local governments, international organizations, organized labor, small
businesses, etc etc.)

As for the At-Large - As Elisabeth P. recently pointed out, its scope is
rather broader than the domain name system.  My own measure of the
At-large is that in encompasses everyone who is affected by the Internet -
and that's pretty much everybody.  As such I don't feel that it is proper
to say that the existance of, or membership in, the GA, IDNO, or At-Large
somehow creates duplicative powers (particularly when the GA and At-Large
are prefectly open to those who are advocates of, or even representatives
of, entities that have other privileged roles, such as being allowed into
one of the DNSO "constituency" clubs.)

		--karl--







--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html