[wg-review] Co-Chair election - comment in lieu of position statement

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

[this started as a comment and became my declaration as
a co-Chair Candidate].

Consensus is for something to work for everyone.
There may be consensus for:
- something to work (IEFT)
- something to work at the best (supposedly DNSO)
- something to better work (ICANN)
Consensus participants may be proxy of unaware people
sharing the same concerns if qualified about these concerns
without losing legitimacy.

Consensus is appropriate for consulting approaches as
IEFT and DNSO. It can be a screen of smoke as in the
way ICANN often uses it. Consensus is inappropriate to
take decisions, but is can be used to supportt existing
decisions. It can use poll, vote methods, anything which
may add to trust. But there are only tools, not references.

Consensus is about building a common agreement.
Consensus is technocracy.

Vote is for something to work according to some's position
against others' opinion: either to settle a choice (@large
Directors election) or priorities (hopefully @large stakeholders)
or decisions (BoD). Participants may be totally unqualified
but the vote has no legitimacy if they are not called to vote.
Vote is appropriate when on wants everyone to feel
concerned and the matter is disputed, as at @large.

Vote is about taking decisions, ie running a power.
Vote is democracy.

Vote for a consensus is oligarchy. And soon as we see
at DNSI anarchy.


Vote is totally inappropriate (except for power control
manipulation when preparing an expert report) for what
DNSO should do. It is however appropriate to elect a Chair
or to decide of a vacation recess in a DNSO study group.

Vote and seat distribution/membership for vote is purely
a control tool by those who have succeeded in making
believe it is Democratic. It is just pragmatic for them.


The real matter is to understand in which scheme we are
placing ourselves:

- existing failing DNSO with confusion between SO
   bylaws duties and @large expectations, as also
   setup by the bylaws

- in a clarification process giving back to the DNSO its
   SO capacity and clearing it from its wrong @large
   involvements.

I note that the existing situation may survive for a while
and continue to make the DNSO a totally useless
structure and a danger for the Domain Name Owners
of every kind, in leaving the world using DN in a wrong
way (with the among others the nuclear consequences
that ICANN tries to patch with ccTLDs, sTLDs, Gov...
New TLD/ augmented.root coming anarchy, NSI
becoming - may be a chance for the USA - the USNIC,
etc... etc..)

or we can correct the situation as this is our real
mandate in scraping the DNSO specific part of the
bylaws, sticking to the SO's duties and rebuilding
DNSO from GA with on purpose study groups
reporting through a commonly set-up NC to the
BoD about real situations and contingency plans.
Again DNSO consensus on a matter is not to be
final, but to be sure we reported everything the BoD
need to know, starting with our disagreements if
any. And carrying a special task this year: to help
existing constituencies to split or transfer through
a cooperation with the @large Study Group so they
may protect their interests there before others take
over their role creating us additional problems and
losses of competences.


The decision is for each of us. Sticking to a past
organization which failed has IMHO no interest. Anyway
coming events and actions will clarify this quick for us
if we do not do it ourselves.

I would like that for once we say, all together - since
this group is a kind of ICANN reduction (2 Directors
if not more by proxy, 7 NC if no more by proxy,
several ccTLDs, @large new comers, DNSO old timers)

- WE the ICANN do not want to fail and be directed
   neither be Governmental decisions nor by large
   commercial interests (we however respect and want
   to listen to at their proper place - GAC and @large)
   but we want to be directed by the common interest
   of the Internet community (we would not last long
   anyway otherwise!)

- this interest is that

   -  TM owners are protected on the long range by
      something realistic and legally standing based
      on a real definition of what is a DN and to who
      it belongs to and under which terms (far more
      complex an issue that anyone really dreams:
      there is one year I labor about it asking many
      many people and documents and my temporary
      definition is still complex and 3 lines long)

   -  e-human rights are studied and respected which
      interestingly enough because we are in a novative
      filed may lead to big commercial and
      industrial advantages

    - the network and the protocols are stable and
      usable by industry interests. We all use the
      phone and the TV without asking ourselves if
      the standard will change tomorrow, the link
      will break or the management is working by
      consensus, vote, lottery or act of God.

    - the user do not fear to be aggressed by hackers,
      UDRPers, spies, etc...

    - TV, telephone, washing machine, station alpha,
      etc.. may  aggregate on the Internet

    -  NICs may support their local culture and the
       ICANN international nature is acknowledged and
       accepted, as an international cooperative
       for the administration of names and numbers.

    -  TLDs may develop, users are happy, Gov.
       have no more concern, NSI may still make money
       and everyone may develop new technologies, grow
       business and do not fear system bottlenecks,
       big brother applications etc...

- and we may now eventually and urgently consider the
   real important stuff which are ASO with the IP addressing
   plan, PSO with the varioius technical convergences to
   achieve and SSRAC with new developments of the DNS
   we need or which are already in use  or under way

   (the DNS is really the least complex part of  the ICANN
   mission ... and there are plenty of people waiting for
   us to consider their needs who will not wait for long).

This is not easy. But please let work with humility
from what we have: bylaws, experience, good will,
and pragmatism.

Let no reinvent the wheel. We have a task, resources,
costs, expectations... let make a business plan.

- what do the ICANN sell, to who, at what price?
   is the market good?
- what is our commercial network? Is it good?
   how to involve it so it improves?
- how do we collect our money, which channel?
- how is our staff and support? Who should we
   fire and appoint? Why?
- how can we better organize to be cheaper and
   more efficient?
- what about the 90% left out people?
- what about reducing the Digital Divide?
- how can we proceed from here?
- etc.....

All of you know better than me about all this.

But what I know is that if we do not do it ourselves
others will do it. Very quickly. And many of us can put
names on who, when, how and since when.

I would prefer we keep the ICANN alive, but for that,
- I am sorry to be trivial but as the word was used
to describe the founding part of the US democratic
voting system ( :-) ) - we have to "move our ass.."


I started this as a comment. It will be my declaration
for the election so I will finish in saying how I see the
outcome of this WG-Review:

1. Report:

     It must state a disagreement with the existing DNSO
     system and NC for the record and explain the spirit
     and the environment of the response.

     It should respond to the questionaire using existing
     reponses (cf. YJ Park memo) and the spirit of the
     co-Chair approach which may be accepted as having
     been delegated for that by the WG-Review under the
     present circumstances.

     Report and quickly document the additional subjects
     by the Members (IDNH, STLD, Consensus, DN Definition,
     and others currently rising) and their status; in general
     a list of questions and topics.

2. After Jan 15th

     The WG-Review should remain as the DNSO counter
     part of the @large Study Group: we cannot take the
     risk of having a one sided approach on a key issue as
     the formalization of  50% of the ICANN concerns and
     98% of its real Members.

     This WG-review should then be given the same "clean
     sheet" mission, with the sme 2 years duration and the
     same capacity to propose bylaws changes. So the
     two sides may define borders, negotiate organization
     arrangements and help relocations.

     The centers of interests created under this WG-Review
     should migrate under the GA, a light center of interests
     coordination be organized as in any reasearch center
     (with "one center/constituency, one vote approach"
     for administrative issues and BoD elections). An agenda
     and a repartition of delayed topics to urgently consider
     should be set-up ASAP. Several here have very matter of
     fact proposition, more will come if it becomes known that
     the DNSO minds its business.

3. I consider that an other major issue is to be addressed
     somewhere  which is two folded:

     -  the rewriting of RFC 1591. To have an RFC and Best
        Practice updated and defining the "internet community"
        own current White Paper.

     -  the review of the statutory membership. Not only a
        "dead hand" organization (nobody behind) creates
        real problems with some foreign laws, but it does not
        give the ICANN the support and the legitimacy it
        needs. Cultures must be addressed that way.
        Regional areas may help as constituencies, not
        in real life (otherwise we could georgaphically have
        French people everywhere). I suppose we could find
        a good cooperation in NICs organizations. Thay are
        outputs and services of their local communities, in
        relation with governments and obviously with local
        @large endeavors and interests.

        (I say NICs as ccTLDs who build the wrong assumption
        that Internet is built on strings. It is built on IP
        addressing and routing which are in the NIC and
        ISP fields).

        IMHO this must be also show in having multilingual
        capability for every one participating in the ICANN
        governance (speaking two languages helps better
        understanding others and their cultures).

        As an example I think that chosing a successor to
        Mike Roberts of Anglo-Saxon culture would be a
        mistake.

I am sorry for having been long.

Jefsey


On 10:51 09/01/01, Roeland Meyer said:
> > From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:Harald@Alvestrand.no]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 12:56 AM
>
> > A vote is a vote. A consensus is a value judgment.
>
>This is precisely my problem with "consensus". It is a value-judgement. In
>other words, it is non-deterministic. There is no definitive connection
>between the evidence of consensus and the result. There is only a
>correlation.
>
>In small groups, that may well work. It doesn't scale past 100,000 members
>though. At that scale, one needs proof and direct causality.
>--
>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

--
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