Re: [wg-review] Please submit your proposal for DNSO Review

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Brian,
you asumption is correct. This is what shoud happen. But we are in a
monopolistic situation due to a perverse and voluntary reading of RFC 1591
and a bad management of the IP addressing plan. They give authority to
the USG. No problem as long as the USG was in direct control. Problem
when a private body is (partly) as it falls under anti-trust US laws. Hence
all this ringmarole abou the Joe Sims' contribution, inept legal set-up.

Your solution does not solve the case as here is still monopoly. The
solution is a bottom up diversified one. By decision of God we decide there
is a GNEW license about the IP adressing as for the DNS. Then the different
stakeholdeds (NICs as ISP unions) unites through the ICANN (as the
Olympic movement). There is a problem of funding of the common
resources. The basis is the IP address. Let pci on $ per annum and address.

You know when you get a football licenses you pay also for Mr. Samaranche.
Would you accept to replace the Olymic flag by the Star and strippes and
make people believe that it is just a variation.

Jefsey


On 06:15 10/01/01, brianappleby@netscape.net said:
>Dear Eric,
>
>I suggest we view our role here as a 'customer' and ICANN is the vendor who
>is required (in theory or in principle) to serve customer requests or needs.
>If we define what consensus is, define or propose a process or set of
>parameters within which a process could be developed, then we have a much
>better foundation upon which to work in the pursuit to get ICANN to focus on
>what is deemed appropriate or inappropriate.
>
>If we assume two things: 1) ICANN needs help in order to figure out how to
>'do the job' (giving them the ultimate benefit of doubt), and 2) ICANN needs
>to be able to be held accountable for the processes and procedures it used to
>operate, then we can help set the parameters within which they function.
>
>The issue of accountability (to whom, for what, and what are the punishments
>if procedures are not followed) is still a broad and heavy damper on efforts
>to achieve meaningful change, but even if the request for support to assist
>in DNSO efforts was intended as a way to protect the status quo through
>description, it did open the door for broader involvement and community
>action by those involved in this working group.
>
>Karl and others are working on the accountability part, let us help support
>the effort to define the requirements and game rules.
>
>Regards to all,
>Brian Appleby
>brianappleby@netscape.net
>
>
>
>Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM> wrote:
> >
> > If consensus is a stated objective of ICANN how can it possibly exist
>without
> > a
> > standing department with officers and employees whos job it is to carry 
> out
> > this
> > function.  It is like Ford not producing automobiles, but having a 
> marketing
> > department to sell them.  Certainly, establishment of such a department
> > should be
> > a reccomendation of this group.
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Greg Burton wrote:
> >
> > > At 11:39 AM 1/9/01, brianappleby@netscape.net wrote:
> > > >If the goal for DNSO is to get help from the working group as to ways to
> > > >improve their ability to generate/create/achieve consensus, then why not
> > > >involve professional or experience consensus 'experts' to support the
> > > >efforts?  Their process-oriented tools and techniques will help separate
> > > >process from personal/professional interests and help define a fair and
> > > >effective way to improve the current poor situation.
> > >
> > > Absolutely correct.
> > >
> > > >consensus building should go through a structured process defining the
> > > >issues, both direct and indirect; defining
> > > >alternative positions on the issues, listing or explaining the 
> trade-offs
> > > >involved in the various position choices; and then dissecting the issues
> > > >to define points of both consensus and contention, with work then
> > > >progressively
> > > >focused on eliminating the latter.
> > >
> > > Sounds like you've done this for real before. It's been suggested *sigh*
> > >
> > > >In terms of definition, please let me share the following, found after a
> > > >quick search on 'consensus'...quite an industry in and of itself.
> > >
> > > Mmhmm, it is. I'm still working on my links list for folks who asked -
> > > hopefully I'll have it up soon.
> > >
> > > >"A public consensus is a collective view of the people in a community
>that
> > is
> > > >more than a majority, an average, a middle ground or a compromise. A
> > > >consensus is what you would expect if people -- even people who 
> disagree
> > with
> > > >each other -- sat down together and honestly tried to find a workable
> > > >solution acceptable to all. And wouldn't quit until they found it.
> > >
> > > Works for me, although I'm a little more formal than that. That's pretty
> > > close to a normally understood meaning.
> > >
> > > They definitely wouldn't recognize what has been called "consensus
>process"
> > > here in the past. Take a look at this post, if you didn't see it through
> > > the spam. Then read the response from Kent, particularly where he repeats
> > > that "my" version of consensus isn't what was intended by the word......
> > > http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg00737.html
> > >
> > > >Note that they use the term 'position' rather than 'decision'.  My take
>on
> > > >this translates into consensus being 'defining what something is or
>should
> > > >be' rather than 'deciding what needs to be done' in order to achieve the
> > > >goals.
> > >
> > > It can be either a policy position or an action directive. Some
> > > conveners/facilitators prefer to focus on policy process, others on 
> action
> > > process. In either case the process of clearly defined rules,
>understanding
> > > of and agreement to the process, agreed upon procedures, and respect for
> > > each other are core to the effort.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Greg
> > >
> > > sidna@feedwriter.com
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> >
>__________________________________________________________________
>Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at
>http://webmail.netscape.com/
>--
>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