Re: [wg-review] Re: DNSO Study

[Rod Dixon <rodd@cyberspaces.org>]

Your comment was specifically directed toward Sotiris, but I would like to
raise a question. You mention many procedural reasons why the
recommendation for the IC should not go forward, is there a substantive
one? Do you oppose the establishment of the IC? If so, would you state
why? If not, I do not see the connection between the understandable
concerns you raised and the implied position that the recommendation
should not go forward. It seems to me that it is never a bad practice
participants in ICANN to make their views known to the Board. The Board is
always free to reject a recommendation. They may reject the recommendation
if it's made after a new study. I think the more times the Board is asked
to establish an IC and they reject the request, it says something about
how responsive the Board is to "members," participants," "Working Groups,"
and the "DNSO." More to the point, I am hopeful that should this
recommendation go forward, the Board might determine that if it rejects
the recommendation, it owes the DNSO a basis for that determination and
not just a vote count. In that regard, we might learn specifically what
further effort is necessary.

Rod


On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, babybows.com wrote:

> 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
>
>


--
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