Re: [wg-review] Re: DNSO Study

[Sotiris <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

"babybows.com" wrote:

> Dear Sotiris,
> <snip>
> 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.

What you do not mention is that a very large percentage of respondents to Joop's
polling on these questions, although they did vote for dissolution, also
supported the establishment of an Indivudual's Constituency.  So, the questions
is: which will it be?  Constituency or dissolution?

> 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"?

Are you forgetting proposals such as the ones put forward by Joop Teernstra and
Darryl Lynch?

> 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?

As I mentioned above, there was an equally large number of respondents who
favoured an Individual's Constituency.  Further, as a "dissolution" is an
endeavour which may well take years to accomplish (considering the pace of
ICANN/DNSO restructuring to date i.e.none ), and the need for Individual
representation is immediate.  In other words Danny, you're saying that
Individuals need to wait for an unspecified amount of time, for a move by the
BoD to dissolve the existing Constituency Organization and Structure of the
DNSO?  And further, you want the DNSO to participate in such an effort?

> 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").

Go back and check Joop's poll results.  I think you will find that the results
will vindicate the position that a majority advocated the need for an
Individual's Constituency, while at the same time, a majority advocated the
"dissolution" proposition.  This is a contradictory result.  How do I explain
it?  I explain it by referring to immediate needs vs. long term plans.  To think
that a dissolution of the DNSO will be effected in the next year or even two, is
in my opinion, quite unrealistic.

> 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.

That's because it's not their job to do so.  They must simply issue a
declaration that they are seeking proposals, the proposing parties will create
the constituency.

> 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.

Again, the BoD is not who will "create" the IC, the Individual's and groups who
will answer to a call for proposals will.  What is your difficulty with this
exactly?  Do you have a problem wih self-organization for the IC?

> 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.

Two years down the line... maybe.  In the meantime, Individual Stakeholders
suffer their lot without adequate representation.  Nice.  Sorry, I don't accept
this.  Let's establish the constituency, and then look into other options, but
the need for the IC is imminent.

> 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.

Why is this an obstacle for you?

> 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.

For the time being.

> There have been compromise positions put forth that allow for individuals to
> be recognized as a body within a restructured DNSO.

Are these "consensus" positions Danny?  If so, what are they?  when and how was
"consensus" achieved?

> 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).

Thank You for your honesty.

> 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.

Are you taking it upon yourself to speak for the Director in question?  I hope
not.  Certainly, they can speak for themselves?

> You are welcome to treat my views as a minority opinion.

Until they are supported by others, they will be.

> Further comments
> will follow.

We look forward to them.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
        Working Chair, WG Review


--
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