<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
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
Emanuel.exe
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|