Re: [wg-review] Regarding Veto Power

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

The following snipped remarks make clear that we stray from a total concept
of what this consensus thing is all about.  Keep in mind this is an American
corporation.
In America boards make the decisions, not bodies.  Most corporations,
municipalities, Districts and counties and townships are run by some type of
board structure. They all have public disclosure and public comment
periods.  Almost all operate under some type of blue sky doctrine which
requires things not be done behind closed doors and without time for the
public to comment.
But then the board votes in public on the issue.  That part is formal and
open and democratic as in majority rules.
Now ICANN has this added dimension, called the requirement of consensus,
generally assumed to be the result of the technical nature of what it
oversees.  In professions where universal principals apply it is presumed
that professionals will reach a consensus. But that is all it is.  During
the public input and comment time it is desireable that the public reach
consensus, that is all nothing more and nothing less.
The BoD still takes a vote and that is the decision.  Veto power is
irrelevant you cannot veto a public opinion, once it is expressed it is
there.

Sincerely,

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> But, without some formality, one cannot have due-process.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:jefsey@wanadoo.fr]
> >
> > Nothing formal. KISS.
> > Jefsey
> >
> >
> >
> > On 19:37 28/03/01, babybows.com said:
> > >Jonathan Weinberg was kind enough to forward to me these
> > remarks regarding
> > >the proposal advanced by Jefsey Morfin:
> > >
> > >  Part of this relates to a
> > >contradiction at ICANN's heart -- ICANN purports to operate
> > by consensus,
> > >but it was formed to decide controversial policy issues for
> > which consensus
> > >is unavailable.  But to resolve that contradiction by
> > requiring that all GA
> > >resolutions have the acquiescence of all bodies (or all but
> > one) will likely
> > >make the DNSO incapable of passing anything, which will by
> > default leave
> > >ICANN staff in the position of making all of the decisions
> > themselves.
> > >
> > >Jon
> > >-------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >Jonathan's discerning comments are well appreciated.  The
> > last line of the
> > >proposed resolution that reads, 'The veto of any two such
> > bodies will thwart
> > >a declaration of consensus by the GA' should probably be
> > eliminated.  As
> > >long as the entire GA votes on any consensus policy
> > formulation (thereby
> > >making its collective will known), there is no truly
> > overriding need for a
> > >veto mechanism.

--
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