Re: [wg-review] View from here

[Sandy Harris <sandy@storm.ca>]

Karl Auerbach wrote:
 
> 1. My sense is that there is a strong belief that the DNSO is a very sick
> puppy and needs some serious care.

I share both your sense of this and the belief mentioned.

> Personally I'd like to take a vote on that question.

OK. Using what mechanism?

> However the pro-"consensus" faction obviously won't mind
> if I simply declare that there is overwhelming consensus on this point.

Methinks you're being stupidly unfair with that statement. Nobody here
has been advocating that sort of misuse of the notion of consensus.

Anyone who thinks they can "simply declare ... consensus" is part of the
problem, clearly mis-understanding the whole consensus process. Granted,
that does seem to be how ICANN operates, but you can no more blame the
advocates of an actual consensus process for that than you can blame 
the advocates of real democracy for some "Democratic Republic..." 
shooting its citizens. 
 
Much of the discussion of consensus has revolved around the question of
whether it is sensible to call decision by 2/3 majority "consensus".
Clearly, it isn't. We should either start actually aiming at running
this by consensus (I'm not convinced this is a realistic goal) or stop
mis-using the label and admit this is not and never has been a
consensus-based process.

> 2. From where I sit the notion of "pay to play" is quite troubling, ...

Yes.

> 3. As for constituencies - I have not seen a compelling justification to
> retain pre-defined "constituencies" with pre-allocated voting powers....

Nor I.

> 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".

Hear, hear!

However, that does not answer the question of whether we should be trying
to build a genuine, accountable, consensus process or trying something
else.

> 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

I agree that formalising things somewhat is likely a good idea, but it is
not clear to me that this is the right way. Granted Robert's Rules have a
long history and are a plausible starting point, and this seems a reasonable
adaptation to electronic media.

However, I cannot see that the "consensus" it talks about is either properly
defined or adequately protected against abuse. If we are retaining the notion
of consensus, methinks that area needs work. 
 
> [snip]
> 
> 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.)

I'd say the most urgent was a constituency for groups working on civil
liberties, privacy, etc. on the net -- EFF, GILC, CPSR, ... -- if only
to counterbalance the big business and trademark interests.

But yes, if we're going to have constituencies, we need your list too.
--
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