Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #189
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Saturday, November 11 2000         Volume 01 : Number 189

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 22:51:13 +0800
From: "YJ Park" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule)

Since Chuck has mentioned here some references to Names Council
which may mislead general assembly or others, I as one of NC members,
want to share my experiences in NC for almost one and a half years.

> Now to your point about whether you should have called for the vote.  I
> think that was fine.  As I stated earlier, I just don't believe that the
> results of the vote should be interpreted to be a GA rough consensus
> position.  On the other hand, to report that the active participants on
the
> GA list during a specified period of time reached a rough consensus on the
> the two points.  Communicating that to the NC would be appropriate.

It woud be a more interesting argument here if you have a chance to see
how NC comes up with so-called NC's position or consensus.

Every entity witin the DNSO needs its desperate efforts and eagerness
to improve themselves. The danger of NC and Board can be it's not
watched properly with adequate checks and balances.

> If I was an NC member or a board member, when I was presented with a
> recommendation that is claimed to be a consensus position, I would expect
to
> see some measurable data to back that up.

Measurable consensus in NC can be very difficult to fathom.

1. To assist the Board in the task of ....., the Names Council recommends
    that the ICANN staff do .......

2. Surprise Consensus which has not been properly mentioned even in the
    NC agenda item and announced as NC position later.

> Otherwise, I would not be convinced that consensus was truly reached.
> My personal opinion is that no DNSO group has done a very good job
> in this regard so far.  And I think that in the next year it will be
critical to
> work on this, that is, to establish clearly defined consensus building
criteria.

Who is going to paly a check and balance role for NC?

YJ

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 08:44:18 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating  rule

I agree

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 2:50 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: FW: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change
> seating rule
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Stoen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 6:09 PM
> To: Thomas Roessler; [email-masked]
> Subject: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating
> rule
> 
> 
> Hi 
>  Let us cut to the chase here.
> Consider this a call to the list.
> 
> A: Is there a CONSENSUS on the following issue: 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) The newly elected board members should take
>    their seats before the general meeting, not after.
> 
> 
> 2) All non-elected members whose terms have been
>    extended beyond their original time should immediately
>    resign. 
> 
> 
> Please reply with yes "I agree"  or "I don't agree"
> 
> 
> Ken
> 
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Thomas
> >Roessler
> >Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 7:05 AM
> >To: William X. Walsh
> >Cc: Gomes, Chuck; 'technizmo'; [email-masked]
> >Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule
> >
> >
> >On 2000-11-10 05:52:44 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> >
> >> Participation is the responsibility of the participant.
> >> Registering or not registering your vote is not our
> >> responsibility.
> >
> >While this is true, it won't work on mailing lists in general.  If
> >all you want to do is claim rough consensus, post a message with a
> >clear and visible subject, like:
> >
> >	CONSENSUS?  <topic>
> >
> >and give people two or three days to indicate their possible
> >objections.  Normally, you'll quite quickly see whether or not there
> >are strong objections against claiming consensus.  This can also be
> >documented.
> >
> >While, this way, you won't get strong documentation and clear
> >legitimation like with formal votes, it'll be sufficient in
> >situations where time is insufficient for a vote, and at least a
> >rough result should be produced.
> >
> >-- 
> >Thomas Roessler                         <[email-masked]>
> >--
> >This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> >Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> >("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 10:52:38 -0600
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change  seating rule)

"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:

> Now to your point about whether you should have called for the vote.  I
> think that was fine.  As I stated earlier, I just don't believe that the
> results of the vote should be interpreted to be a GA rough consensus
> position.

Agreed.  Indeed, Harald has indicated  his own appreciation for this concern.
Now, we need  to follow up by developing procedures and criteria, as Chuck has
suggested.

> On the other hand, to report that the active participants on the
> GA list during a specified period of time reached a rough consensus on the
> the two points.  Communicating that to the NC would be appropriate.

Unless there has been a defined response (e.g. "agree/disagree") to a stated
proposition (as is now occurring in this case), I would prefer that list
officials do no more than represent their own opinions.   If there has been a
poll, the results should speak for themselves.  If not, there is a lot of room
for interpretation of what was said.

There should probably be a form of report for poll results, which includes the
proposition, the response, the period of consideration, and, possibly, the
number of members (more for outside consumption than for the board which is
presumably aware of our membership).

> ...And I think that
> in the next year it will be critical to work on this, that is, to establish
> clearly defined consensus building criteria.

Isn't  that only an issue where there is a "binding" or "affecting"
vote/result?  If we are only expressing an opinion, wouldn't the raw numbers
suffice?

However, I do agree that there needs to be better definition of "consensus"
where that has a determinative or binding effect.  I support specifying
different majorities for determining different subjects.

FWIW, I will indicate my agreement with the two stated propositions in a
separate post.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 11:11:03 -0600
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

> > 1) The newly elected board members should take
> >    their seats before the general meeting, not after.
>

Agreed.

>
> > 2) All non-elected members whose terms have been
> >    extended beyond their original time should immediately
> >    resign.

Agreed.

The issue of legitimacy is quite real.  The SO  and ALM elected
representatives can speak with a higher level of authority than those
appointed without such processes.  The "initial board" was named on an
interim basis for lack of available alternatives.  The need for their
continued service passed with the creation of the SOs and the ALM.  The
mechanism for (s)electing replacements should be immediately set in
motion.

In a separate post, I will further suggest that the mechanism for
replacing the four directors be the appointment of the second place
finishers in the four regions with the highest number of members--Asia,
Europe, North America, and South America.  The proportional
representation electoral system used by ICANN indicates that they were,
indeed, the preferred choices for board membership if two slots were
available in each region.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:19:30 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule)

On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 10:51:13PM +0800, YJ Park wrote:
> 
> Who is going to paly a check and balance role for NC?

The checks and balances on the NC are the standard checks and balances on 
*any* elected body -- if you don't like what your representatives do, 
you don't re-elect them, or, in the worst case, you impeach them.  
That's perfectly normal; there isn't any particular mystery about the 
NC in this regard.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:45:38 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 11:11:03AM -0600, Weisberg wrote:
> 
> The issue of legitimacy is quite real.

Yes, but you overlook a very fundamental question.  Legitimacy with
whom?

> The SO  and ALM elected
> representatives can speak with a higher level of authority than those
> appointed without such processes.

That is a point to be proven, not an axiom.  Arguably, the initial board
members were chosen for their objectivity, for their ability to stand 
above the fray.  If that objectivity has high value, then the initial 
board members are the ones with higher authority.

> The "initial board" was named on an
> interim basis for lack of available alternatives.  The need for their
> continued service passed with the creation of the SOs and the ALM.

Actually, a reasonable measure of the need for their continued service
is the job that needs to get done.  Since the initial board members are 
the ones with the greatest experience in the running of ICANN, absent 
any evidence of wrongdoing or incompetence, there is no reason to hurry 
to get rid of them.  And there is no evidence of either wrongdoing or 
incompetence -- in fact, the initial board has done a remarkable job.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:53:12 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to c hange seating rule)

1) We don't elect NC members, that much is obvious. We tried and we failed.
The ICANN BoD appointed whomever they want, regardless of the wishes of the
GA. That record is clear.

2) There is no impeachement mechanism that works. If there is, show it to
me.

3) The NC is an appointed body, not an elected one. The ICANN BoD is the
sole appointer. GA NC elections are meaningless.

Kent, you knew all of the above when you posted. You lie. However, this is
the most egregious lie that I have ever seen you make. You are usually not
this obvious. Are you feeling well? Or, perhaps you are feeling too well.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 9:20 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General 
> Assembly call to
> change seating rule)
> 
> 
> On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 10:51:13PM +0800, YJ Park wrote:
> > 
> > Who is going to paly a check and balance role for NC?
> 
> The checks and balances on the NC are the standard checks and 
> balances on 
> *any* elected body -- if you don't like what your representatives do, 
> you don't re-elect them, or, in the worst case, you impeach them.  
> That's perfectly normal; there isn't any particular mystery about the 
> NC in this regard.
> 
> -- 
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> [email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 12:07:49 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: FW: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

At 2:49 am -0800 11/11/00, PMIW,  Ken Stoen wrote:
>A: Is there a CONSENSUS on the following issue:
>
>
>
>1) The newly elected board members should take
>   their seats before the general meeting, not after.

I agree.

>
>2) All non-elected members whose terms have been
>   extended beyond their original time should immediately
>   resign.

I agree.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 12:15:00 -0600
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 11:11:03AM -0600, Weisberg wrote:
> >
> > The issue of legitimacy is quite real.
>
> Yes, but you overlook a very fundamental question.  Legitimacy with
> whom?

No.  I defined "legitimacy" in terms of the governed, and their power to
affect who shall represent them.  How would you define it?

> > The SO  and ALM elected
> > representatives can speak with a higher level of authority than those
> > appointed without such processes.
>
> That is a point to be proven, not an axiom.

Assuming the definition of "legitimacy" stated, above, isn't the proof
self-evident?

> Arguably, the initial board
> members were chosen for their objectivity, for their ability to stand
> above the fray.  If that objectivity has high value, then the initial
> board members are the ones with higher authority.

Those are criteria to be weighed by represented."
If they, in fact, choose these people to represent them, your conclusion is
supported.  Short of that process, yours" is a point to be proven, not an
axiom."

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 10:34:02 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: FW: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

Hello Ken,

Agree with both positions.

Saturday, November 11, 2000, 2:49:35 AM, you wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Stoen [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 6:09 PM
> To: Thomas Roessler; [email-masked]
> Subject: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating
> rule

> Hi 
>  Let us cut to the chase here.
> Consider this a call to the list.

> A: Is there a CONSENSUS on the following issue: 

> 1) The newly elected board members should take
>    their seats before the general meeting, not after.

> 2) All non-elected members whose terms have been
>    extended beyond their original time should immediately
>    resign. 

> Please reply with yes "I agree"  or "I don't agree"

> Ken

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Thomas
>>Roessler
>>Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 7:05 AM
>>To: William X. Walsh
>>Cc: Gomes, Chuck; 'technizmo'; [email-masked]
>>Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule
>>
>>
>>On 2000-11-10 05:52:44 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>>
>>> Participation is the responsibility of the participant.
>>> Registering or not registering your vote is not our
>>> responsibility.
>>
>>While this is true, it won't work on mailing lists in general.  If
>>all you want to do is claim rough consensus, post a message with a
>>clear and visible subject, like:
>>
>>       CONSENSUS?  <topic>
>>
>>and give people two or three days to indicate their possible
>>objections.  Normally, you'll quite quickly see whether or not there
>>are strong objections against claiming consensus.  This can also be
>>documented.
>>
>>While, this way, you won't get strong documentation and clear
>>legitimation like with formal votes, it'll be sufficient in
>>situations where time is insufficient for a vote, and at least a
>>rough result should be produced.
>>
>>-- 
>>Thomas Roessler                         <[email-masked]>
>>--
>>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>>
>>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 12:33:43 -0600
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Replacing unelected AL reps/2nd place finishers

PROPOSITION:
The mechanism for replacing the four unelected directors should those
seats be vacated should be the appointment of the second place
finishers in the four regions with the highest number of members--Asia,
Europe, North America, and South America?

(My opinion)  Agreed.

DISCUSSION:
The proportional representation electoral system used by ICANN (STV/IRV)
indicates that the second place finishers were, indeed, the preferred
choices for board membership if two slots were available in each of
those regions.  Such mechanism has already been deemed most appropriate
and adequate by the institution's own processes, can be implemented
without the time and expense of a new election, and is, on the whole,
the most fairly representative alternative available for immediate
implementation.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 11:01:02 -0800
From: "Bret A. Fausett" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule)

YJ Park <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Measurable consensus in NC can be very difficult to fathom.

Consensus for the NC is actually defined in the ICANN bylaws in way that can
be objectively measured. Specifically, a NC consensus recommendation to the
Board on matters of policy is anything that has a 2/3 vote of the NC
members. See, Bylaws, Article VI-B, Section 2(d):
http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI-B

When the NC released it "press release" in September counseling against
pre-registration in speculative new TLDs, that was *not* a consensus policy
under the bylaws. In fact, from the NC minutes, it doesn't appear that it
was even put forward for a vote.

Since the NC "press release" did not actually call for any Board action, it
arguably did not need to meet the standards for "consensus" set forth in the
Bylaws. Nevertheless, for those less schooled in the details of ICANN's
bylaws, it was certainly confusing, and made more so by the fact that ICANN
carried the "press release" over to the main ICANN web site.

In the future, it would be helpful to the community if the NC made a clear
distinction between when it is acting in a formal consensus manner as
contemplated by the bylaws and when it is doing something else.

        -- Bret

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 13:01:24 -0600
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Proposition resent

This is a slightly edited resend when the original did not show on the
list after 20+ min.
**********

PROPOSITION:

The mechanism for replacing the four unelected directors if those
seats be vacated, now,  should be the appointment of the second place
finishers in the four regions with the highest number of members--Asia,
Europe, North America, and South America.

(My opinion)  Agreed.

DISCUSSION:
The proportional representation electoral system used by ICANN (STV/IRV)

indicates that the second place finishers were, indeed, the preferred
choices for board membership if two slots were available in each of
those regions.  Such mechanism has already been deemed most appropriate
and adequate by the institution's own processes, can be implemented
without the time and expense of a new election, and is, on the whole,
the most fairly representative alternative available for immediate
implementation.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 11:12:41 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to c hange seating rule)

Is this like when, the Pope speaks ex cathedra?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bret A. Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 11:01 AM
> To: YJ Park; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General 
> Assembly call to
> change seating rule)
> 
> 
> YJ Park <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > Measurable consensus in NC can be very difficult to fathom.
> 
> Consensus for the NC is actually defined in the ICANN bylaws 
> in way that can
> be objectively measured. Specifically, a NC consensus 
> recommendation to the
> Board on matters of policy is anything that has a 2/3 vote of the NC
> members. See, Bylaws, Article VI-B, Section 2(d):
> http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI-B
> 
> When the NC released it "press release" in September 
> counseling against
> pre-registration in speculative new TLDs, that was *not* a 
> consensus policy
> under the bylaws. In fact, from the NC minutes, it doesn't 
> appear that it
> was even put forward for a vote.
> 
> Since the NC "press release" did not actually call for any 
> Board action, it
> arguably did not need to meet the standards for "consensus" 
> set forth in the
> Bylaws. Nevertheless, for those less schooled in the details 
> of ICANN's
> bylaws, it was certainly confusing, and made more so by the 
> fact that ICANN
> carried the "press release" over to the main ICANN web site.
> 
> In the future, it would be helpful to the community if the NC 
> made a clear
> distinction between when it is acting in a formal consensus manner as
> contemplated by the bylaws and when it is doing something else.
> 
>         -- Bret
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 20:38:32 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Replacing unelected AL reps/2nd place finishers

On Sat, 11 Nov 2000, at 12:33 [=GMT-0600], Weisberg wrote:

> PROPOSITION:
> The mechanism for replacing the four unelected directors should those
> seats be vacated should be the appointment of the second place
> finishers in the four regions with the highest number of members--Asia,
> Europe, North America, and South America?
> 
> (My opinion)  Agreed.

Agreed.

- -- 
Marc Schneiders (rest in header)

> 
> 
> DISCUSSION:
> The proportional representation electoral system used by ICANN (STV/IRV)
> indicates that the second place finishers were, indeed, the preferred
> choices for board membership if two slots were available in each of
> those regions.  Such mechanism has already been deemed most appropriate
> and adequate by the institution's own processes, can be implemented
> without the time and expense of a new election, and is, on the whole,
> the most fairly representative alternative available for immediate
> implementation.
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 11:35:49 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:06:59PM -0500, Paul Svensson wrote:
> I don't see you being silent on the list Chuck, so I don't understand
> what "your case" would be, or how it is relevant here.  As I see it,
> there are only two reasons for anyone to be silent in the debate:
>
> 	1) The outcome is not important enough for them to bother with it,
> 	2) They accept the consensus of those participating in the debate.
> 
> Either way, consensus can only be measured among the participants,
> whether there are fifty or 5 billion quiet bystanders, is totally 
> irrelevant 

As Chuck pointed out, there are many reasons.  The one I am most
concerned about is a variation of your 1) above:

    3) The outcome is not important for them because the opinion of the
    GA is irrelevant.

To put it in other words, the major issue before the GA is not the
credibility (legitimacy) of the Board.  The issue is the credibility
(legitimacy) of the GA.  

There is a very good reason that the GA has so little influence/power in
the bylaws.  That reason is that *many* people feared that the GA would
simply be a magnet for lunatics, idealogues, etc, and would do more harm
than good to any constructive activity.  The early days of the GA,
before the list rules were in place, amply confirmed those fears.  It
wasn't too many months ago where the major traffic on this list was
dirty limricks from Joe Baptista.  Many people left the list; the people
who worried about whether the GA could work saw their concerns born out
in full, and have written off the GA entirely. 

The GA, in other words, has a large burden of proof in making the case
that it is a serious body that merits attention in ICANN processes.  
There has been perhaps some small progress in credibility since the 
list rules went into effect.  But pointless resolutions demanding that 
Directors resign etc have undone all that.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 20:45:10 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to c hange seating rule)

On Sat, 11 Nov 2000, at 11:12 [=GMT-0800], Roeland Meyer wrote:

> Is this like when, the Pope speaks ex cathedra?

Of course not. It will certainly not be wise to believe the NC in
order to ascertain the truth or to be saved.

- -- 
Marc Schneiders

"In re tam iusta nulla est deliberatio."
(Acta SS. Mart. Scillitanorum [AD 202]) 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bret A. Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 11:01 AM
> > To: YJ Park; [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: Consensus vs Voting (RE: [ga] DNSO General 
> > Assembly call to
> > change seating rule)
> > 
> > 
> > YJ Park <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > > Measurable consensus in NC can be very difficult to fathom.
> > 
> > Consensus for the NC is actually defined in the ICANN bylaws 
> > in way that can
> > be objectively measured. Specifically, a NC consensus 
> > recommendation to the
> > Board on matters of policy is anything that has a 2/3 vote of the NC
> > members. See, Bylaws, Article VI-B, Section 2(d):
> > http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI-B
> > 
> > When the NC released it "press release" in September 
> > counseling against
> > pre-registration in speculative new TLDs, that was *not* a 
> > consensus policy
> > under the bylaws. In fact, from the NC minutes, it doesn't 
> > appear that it
> > was even put forward for a vote.
> > 
> > Since the NC "press release" did not actually call for any 
> > Board action, it
> > arguably did not need to meet the standards for "consensus" 
> > set forth in the
> > Bylaws. Nevertheless, for those less schooled in the details 
> > of ICANN's
> > bylaws, it was certainly confusing, and made more so by the 
> > fact that ICANN
> > carried the "press release" over to the main ICANN web site.
> > 
> > In the future, it would be helpful to the community if the NC 
> > made a clear
> > distinction between when it is acting in a formal consensus manner as
> > contemplated by the bylaws and when it is doing something else.
> > 
> >         -- Bret
> > 
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 11:42:22 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 12:15:00PM -0600, Weisberg wrote:
> Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 11:11:03AM -0600, Weisberg wrote:
> > >
> > > The issue of legitimacy is quite real.
> >
> > Yes, but you overlook a very fundamental question.  Legitimacy with
> > whom?
> 
> No.  I defined "legitimacy" in terms of the governed, and their power to
> affect who shall represent them.  How would you define it?

ICANN isn't a government.

The entities over which ICANN has direct influence are registries,
registrars, and standards bodies.  They would constitute the 
"governed". 

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: 11 Nov 2000 12:15:55 -0800
From: Ian Lance Taylor <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: FW: CONSENSUS? [ga] DNSO General Assembly call to change seating rule

   From: [email-masked] (PMIW,  Ken Stoen)
   Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 02:49:35 -0800

   1) The newly elected board members should take
      their seats before the general meeting, not after.

   2) All non-elected members whose terms have been
      extended beyond their original time should immediately
      resign. 

I agree.

Ian Taylor
[email-masked]
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #189
************************