Re: [wg-review] Re: DNSO Study

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

DITTO

Rod Dixon wrote:

> 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

--
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