RE: [wg-review] View from here

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

Karl-

You find the "pay to play" concept difficult- yet, someone has to pay for
the web and list servers that allow us to conduct these exercises.

Is there some way you can agree to "pay to play" at least to fund the
infrastructure necessary to maintain the web and list serves, and a
reasonable amount of scribes for documenting all of this?


and- i WILL NOT accept that all of this can be done by volunteers.

peter de Blanc

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Eric Dierker
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 8:55 PM
To: Karl Auerbach
Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-review] View from here


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

--
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