[wg-review] Re: DNSO Study

["babybows.com" <webmaster@babybows.com>]

Dear Sotiris,

Your initial draft proposal began with the following sentences in the
preface:  "This document is not intended to reflect a set of consensus-based
policy recommendations founded on unanimous compromise between all active
participants within the WG-Review.  Nor does it reflect a consensus defined
in terms of a 2/3 formulation based on the number of participants in a
vote."

The preface ended with this phrase:  "this paper...  is therefore not
intended as an exhaustive or adequate reflection of the WGr as a whole."

I agreed with your initial assessment that this report was not a consensus
formulation, and consider your decision to substantially amend the preface,
based solely upon one comment to "not start off with a negative", as
inconsistent with the conclusion you had earlier reached.  As such, I must
regard the claim made in your most recent post, that you have, "in fact,
uncovered a consensus" to be sufficiently open to debate.

While a straw poll may readily validate your surmise, there will be those
that will argue that such a poll will only be reflective of what our former
Chair referred to as the "last man standing phenomenon", in which only the
die-hard proponents of certain agendas remain to participate.  This could
surely account for the "many encouraging emails" you have received
"off-list", especially if recommendations that further these agendas are now
being put forth as a consensus declaration.

As you have asked for points and comments, I will be glad to offer my views.

The recommendation regarding the Individuals' Constituency is predicated on
your contention that the dissolution of the Constituency structure "may not
be in order at this point, due to the still nascent nature of the DNSO and
ICANN in general, and the immediate need for representation of Individuals
within the DNSO."  I challenge this conclusion; a very large number of
participants in this review have argued that dissolution is indeed in order
at this point, and dissolution proposals have clearly provided a manner by
which individuals may have a voice.  Other than the sole comment put forth
by Marilyn Cade with regard to the nascent nature of the DNSO (which was
subject to numerous comments in rebuttal), I cannot find support for your
position to delay action on what was by your own description a "popular
idea".  From whence do you have the consensus that the proposals regarding
dissolution "should be revisited at a later point in time"?

If you have no problems stating that "a large majority in the WGr appeared
to favour reorganization along such lines", then why is this not the primary
recommendation being put forth?

You have asked what my definition of a consensus mechanism/verdict might be.
I consider consensus to be a conclusion that reflects very broad agreement,
where opposition is either very limited, of relatively low intensity,
unreasoned, or comes from those who are not in fact adversely impacted.  By
this definition I would argue that the recommendation regarding the
formation of an Individuals' Constituency is not a consensus position (as
the very broad agreement was not in favor of adding Constituencies to a
horribly flawed existing structure, but rather was in favor of dissolving
that very structure -- this is what I believe to be the "accurate reflection
of the general sentiments and comments of the last 4 months").

If I may be indulged, I would offer a few comments to those that vigorously
support the creation of an Individuals' Constituency.  Five weeks ago the
ICANN Board flatly rejected an attempt to create such a constituency by way
of executive fiat.  A recommendation by this Review WG, which once more
essentially advances the very same proposition without fully detailing new,
relevant, and persuasive arguments, will only fall upon ears not willing to
listen - your cause is not served by the articulation that others (though
well-intentioned) would provide.

On the other hand, if a comprehensive study of possible solutions determines
that the dissolution of the constituency structure is not a viable option,
for whatever reason, then the argument that new constituencies must be added
for the sake of adequate representation (beginning with an Individuals'
Constituency) gains more credence.

In the meantime, please acknowledge that the rejection of the executive fiat
approach now requires you to self-organize and to present anew a charter.
Seek to raise the $15,000 that you will need to join the existing
Constituency Club.  The Names Council has already made it quite clear to our
colleagues in the Non-Commercial Constituency that they will not entertain a
request for subsidized dues.  You can expect to receive equal treatment and
must plan on paying your own way.   Show the Board that you are prepared to
meet whatever criteria the NC will impose on new constituencies; if you are
so set on committing to this existing structure, you will have to learn to
live within it.

There have been compromise positions put forth that allow for individuals to
be recognized as a body within a restructured DNSO.  If leaders of the
Individuals' movement decide to opt-out of the possibility of compromise,
and to pursue only the Constituency approach, then I remind you that they do
not require our consensus to proceed (as it has always been their right to
petition the Board for recognition).

I would also remind you that as one of our Directors has been a participant
in the Review WG, this Director will most likely scrutinize all
recommendations being put forth and may indeed question how the decision was
reached to postpone action on a position that he was among the first to
advocate.  The credibility of this report is at stake.

You are welcome to treat my views as a minority opinion.  Further comments
will follow.









--
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