[wg-review] misunderstanding about icann, consensus and decisions

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

We have to be aware of the basic misunderstanding regarding the iCANN.
The iCANN is *not* to take decisions.

It is only to transform consensus about needs or action into facts.
And SO are not to vote but to help uncovering these consensus.

It is true that to at iCANN has to take decisions, buth there are
management decision, not political decisions.

Obviously iCANN would be much more understandable to all if
it was clearly described as an association instead of a corporation.
iCANN can only be the association of the local and market
Internet communities.

Jefsey



On 02:58 29/03/01, Eric Dierker said:
>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