Re: [wg-review] [BoD] Yesterday's news.

[Bret Busby <bret@clearsol.iinet.net.au>]

Eric Dierker wrote:
> 
> Anyone please correct any of these points if they are not correct:
> 
> a.    Everyones life is impacted by the internet, somehow.
> b.    Everyone is a stakeholder in how the internet is administered.
> c.    Access and reliability are the two most important goals of admistration
> of the internet.

Equity needs to be added, as a third, and, equally important, goal.

> d.    ICANN is in need of improvements.

I doubt that many people (on a relative basis).

> e.    Ultimately the BoD should all be duly elected and represent a broad
> spectrum of interests. Constituencies should reflect those interests.

I disagree. ICANN should not be ruled by self-interest groups, but,
rather, by the people; by its subjects, as equally, and, fairly, as
possible.

It depends on wheter you want democracy, or, oligarchy.

I suggest that ICANN's board members should be geographically
representative - if not a member respresenting each country, then, a
member (or, a group of members, eg, 18 members, 9 continents, -> 2
members per continent; if 6 continents, then, 3 members per continent,
and, the group members could each represent different parts of the
continent, etc) representing each continent.

> f.    ICANN should be operated within the law.

Yes. But, which law(s), and, which jurisdictions, and, who shall have
jurisdiction to interpret and aminister the applicable laws? If USA law
is to apply, then, ICANN is USA. If laws are agreed upon (by discussion,
and, decision), then, if disputes arise, which would be inevitable, a
court (or courts) of competent jurisidction, ned to be defined and
authorised, with laws governing the processes of the court(s).

> g.    On a practical level, both majority rule and consensus must be used in
> order to effectuate the goals of administereing the internet.

I believe in "majority rule"; whatever gets the most votes,
democratically, and fairly, should win.

Consensus appears to be a concept created by the people to whom the
"form a committee, if you want to stop anything from happening",
applies.

To me, consensus has the purpose of eliminating democracy, and sincerity
of purpose. Remember the film "Twelve Angry Men"? They were prepared,
except one, to condemn a man to death, because a unanimous decision had
to be reached, and, for most of them, being in the jury was
inconvenient, and, they wanted to just get home to continue their normal
lives, without giving the issue proper consideration.

Trying to achieve whatever level of "consensus", that is set, when it is
above 50 or 51%, unnecessarily extends the time taken to make decisions,
and, by the nature of the time and effort involved, can ensure that the
decision made is a wrong one; that consensus is never reached, andf,
that, for the sake of expediency, no benefit to anyone results from the
procedure.

I believe in democracy. To me, it is simple. Whoever, or, whatever, gets
the most votes wins, with voting on a "first past the post" basis, with
each participant having only one vote. Anything else results in a
protracted process, without an equitable and correct outcome. If a
decision is made, purely on the basis, for example, that the deadline
for the decision looms, and a party concedes to the opposing view, by
voting for it, even though the party completely disagrees with it,
solely in order to obtain the "consensus", to have a decsion by the
deadline, then, as in Seneca's Medea, in reference tot natural justice
not being accorded, "even if the decision is the correct decision, the
making of the decision will not have been correct"

Therefore, "consensus", as described on this list, is self-defeating.

I note, that, in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, 8th Edition, 1990,
"consensus" is defined as 2. "majority view".

Thus, I believe, in the simple, and, relatively quick, method of, as I
have described, a simple majority, to decide issues.

But, then, I am defeated by my own principles, as, from what I have seen
on this list, simplicity and speed in making decisions, is not wanted,
but, rather, "consensus" and protraction appear to be wanted by the
majority of participants, so, in this, my opinion appears to be that of
a dissenting minority.

> h.    Education of the public and ICANN directors is a worthwhile goal.

and, imperative.

> i.     Somehow ICANN must fund itself.

Ah. If ICANN is to be independent, and, if ICANN incurs expenses, then,
it appears that ICANN must be self-funding. I believe that the
appropriate way to achieve that, is a fixed tax on all domain name
registrations - both gTLD, and, ccTLD, for example, a tax of (if the USA
currency is to be the currency of ICANN :( ), 1USD per year, on each
registered domain name, charged to the domain name registrant, by the
domain name registrar, and, paid to ICANN, by the domian name registrar.
The amount that I have mentioned, is arbitrary, and, would need to be
modified according to the requirements to be funded. But, no other
charges should be levied, and, the funding should incorporate funding of
dispute resolution tribunals, so that one can be set up in each country,
with fees for determining resolutions, only charged to frivolous and
malicious disputes that are lodged. A registrar (as in a court
registrar), could determine whether any dispute is not lodged in good
faith.

Then, may we have an independent ICANN, with an accessible dispute
resolution procedure.

But, that is my opinion, and, no doubt, may will disagree.

> 
> Thank you for any imput, sometimes I just require a little tierra firma to
> stand on while trying to gage these sifting sands.

-- 

Bret Busby

Armadale, West Australia

......................................
"So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the
answer means."
 - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 - Douglas Adams, 1988 
......................................
--
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