Re: [wg-review] View from here

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>]

As I reread this I thought it might do well as a springboard for further
"consensus building".  I believe that was ICANN pc speak.

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> Folks - this group is spinning in circles.
> consent

>
> 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.
> consent on both points

>
> 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 feesfrom
> the users of the net who thus end up paying twice.

consent

>

>
> 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.) consent
>
> 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.) consent, education may be key here.
>
> 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".

consent, I believe any consensus must be validated by majority vote after
rough 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:
> consent, if the minutes conform as a matter of law, some such procedure must
> be employed.
>     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.) consent, sorry but this seems like a fairly workable
> idea.
>
> 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--
> It seems that the U.S. senate model works fairly well, they all vote on
> behalf of their various 50 constituencies but they usually accomplish the
> goal of representing the entire nation. Keeping in mind there is a great
> deal of consensus gathering prior to a vote.
> --
> 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
begin:vcard 
n:Dierker;Eric
tel;fax:(858) 571-8497
tel;work:(858) 571-8431
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:Eric@Hi-Tek.com
end:vcard