Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #667
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Monday, August 13 2001           Volume 01 : Number 667

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

Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 00:41:00 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

Copied to Philip Sheppard as WG Chair.

On 18:32 12/08/01, Peter de Blanc said:
>Sorry, the .html got left out
>http://www.cpn.org/cpn/sections/tools/techniques/consensus_democracy.html
>And your link ending on ...tools is a good place to start.

This is an excellent case based ("what i a consensus") approach of the 
general me/we model - (however it goes very far on details). You may note 
that most of the other posts described the consensus as something with live 
with but we do not know how to define.

The consensus is a key compenent of the "me/we" model as I name it, which 
is taking over as a social, technical and probably economical model for the 
XXIst century society.

In that model the consensus - and you all expressed it nicely without using 
the word - is what is "community correct".

The consensus is a dynamic evolutive, multi-dimensional new form of the 
social pact applied to a community: one element of the community pact . It 
may be based upon a referent (reality, faith, program...) or originated by 
the community itself. It is obtained by the progressive filtering of the 
opinions the community leaders feel as inapropriate. This filtering may 
also be a "consensus by exclusion" of the undesirable members, then 
resented as "intruders" or more.

The weakness of community originated "consensus" is that it may become 
totally stranger to the reality, a self-created creed giving however the 
community the consensus feelings of homogeity, stability and security.

A consensus may also become empty. We experiment that with the NC: there 
are so many positions filtered that there is no more substance. To correct 
that situation, changing the methods will not make any good - they are 
neutral. You have to remove some of the filters. IMHO the DNSO produces 
nothing because both DNSO and @large filters are applied to its consensus 
filtering process. DNSO will produce normally as soon as its @large 
concerns - and therefore filters - are removed.

Jefsey

PS. I would be interested in digging into "me/we" (ego-communitarian) 
model, and I am considering a three days brain storming cession this falls 
on the matter as part of the "governance" workshop started by the European 
Commissions.  Interested people from this Mailing List welcome.

- --
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: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 00:57:26 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Announce: Best Practices - Part II, Flow Chart

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

- --MS_Mac_OE_3080509047_849831_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

BEST PRACTICES - Part II  (Flow Chart) is now published at:-

HTML version: http://www.paradigm.nu/~istakeholder/flowchart.htm

PDF version: http://www.paradigm.nu/~istakeholder/flowchart.pdf (466 Kb)

Zipped PDF version: http://www.paradigm.nu/~istakeholder/flowchart.zip (234
Kb)

_____________________________________________________________________

This is best reviewed together with Part I - (Introduction, Principles and
Definitions), copied below.
Part III - (Timeline Guide), which gives the optimum time that should be
allowed for each process to take place, is work in progess that will be
published in due course.
______________________________________________________________________

BEST PRACTICES - Part I

The General Assembly of ICANN is intended to serve as an advisory body on
issues important to the function of ICANN, and that lie within the area of
responsibility of the DNSO.  Contributions by the General Assembly are to b=
e
based upon a consensus of the opinions of its members. Consensus can only b=
e
achieved, however, when there are clearly defined ISSUES on which decisions
can be based, and mechanisms that provide all General Assembly members with
the opportunity both to voice their opinions and themselves to generate the
ISSUES, and their solutions, that will be treated. This outline, with its
PRINCIPLES, DEFINITIONS, and FLOW CHART and its associated TIME-LINES, is
intended to set out a system of BEST PRACTICES that will provide that
mechanism.=20

By following these BEST PRACTICES, it is believed that:-

(a) substantive decisions can be reached more expeditiously;
(b) participants in the process can see positive results from their
contributions, and thus feel more to be a part of the functioning of ICANN;
and=20
(c) the factual BASIS underlying an ultimate VOTE to be taken will have bee=
n
provided, and the course of the process will have been fully demonstrated,
whereby the result of that VOTE will be accorded the full respect that is
its due.

In short, these BEST PRACTICES are intended to set out a systematic process
in which the occurrence of vigorous DISCUSSION and DEBATE is there for all
to see, the formulation therefrom of a definite position is achieved, and a
final VOTE that reaches a conclusion is taken, thus to provide weight to an=
d
evidence for a legitimate claim of consensus within the General Assembly.

CALL FOR ACTION

The general thrust of these BEST PRACTICES centers on a single concept --
the CALL FOR ACTION which, if followed through to a conclusion, will result
in a MOTION being put to a VOTE of the full membership of the General
Assembly. These BEST PRACTICES are intended to help direct activity of the
General Assembly to achieve that goal, through steps that will give every
voice an opportunity to be heard, while at the same time avoiding
fractionating or splintering of the effort, in each case by keeping the
focus of General Assembly members on the ISSUE at hand.

This procedure is simple enough that its administration could be carried ou=
t
by a GA SECRETARIAT, or by any person who would not himself or herself hold
strong views on the ISSUE at hand, but would simply facilitate in an
impartial manner.

PRINCIPLES

Participants recognize that the work of the General Assembly in general,
commencing with a Member=B9s CALL FOR ACTION, is driven by a set of
PRINCIPLES. The design of these BEST PRACTICES has been based upon the
principle that both the mechanism itself and the TIME-LINES established
therewith will ensure that the overall process shall:

1. Be participatory
2. Be sustainable
3. Be legitimate and accessible to people
4. Be transparent
5. Be able to develop the resources and methods of a General Assembly
6. Be able to mobilize necessary resources and expertise
7. Be efficient and effective in resource use
8. Engender and command respect and trust
9. Be accountable to the public trust
10. Be able to define and take ownership of recommended actions
11. Be enabling and facilitative
12. Be regulatory rather than controlling
13. Be able to deal with temporal issues
14. Be service oriented

STANDARD DEFINITIONS

Efficient communication between members of a General Assembly that is
operating worldwide in an on-line environment, using email lists as its
primary tool, requires a common understanding of the words used to describe
its BEST PRACTICES. Listed in alphabetical order.

AMENDMENT: A change in wording in a PROPOSAL or MOTION that does not annul
its essential point.

BASIS: On-line description of purported facts that underlie some particular
ISSUE, that explains why there is a need for action, indicates the nature
and extent of action being sought, and how that action would resolve the
ISSUE and impact current operations, thus justifying the formulation of a
PROPOSAL or the offering of a MOTION.

CALL FOR ACTION:  A demand that action be taken with regard to an ISSUE.
=20
DEBATE: On-line exchange of comment concerning the merits of a formal
PROPOSAL or a MOTION.

DISCUSSION: On-line exchange of comments concerning some matter of
importance in the functioning of ICANN that lies within the scope of
responsibility of the General Assembly, that clarifies an ISSUE and examine=
s
the BASIS therefor, typically arising from one or more SUGGESTIONS, CALLS
FOR ACTION and from which may arise the formulation of a definitive
PROPOSAL.

FLOW CHART: A graphic representation of processes that make up the various
procedures of the General Assembly and how they may fit together; used to
determine TIME-LINES for dealing with ISSUES.

GA SECRETARIAT: An office charged with the administration of voting
procedures, including the setting of TIME-LINES to assist the General
Assembly with addressing ISSUES in a timely fashion according to BEST
PRACTICES.

INVESTIGATION: A search for and compilation of documents and the like so as
to help provide a BASIS for a PROPOSAL or MOTION.

ISSUE: A condition of fact thought to exist on which it is believed that
some action may be required.

MOTION: A formal, declarative call for action on some issue, phrased so as
to be amenable to being either accepted or rejected, and being in an
agreed-upon form that could be presented to the General Assembly for a VOTE=
.
A MOTION results from RECOGNITION of a PROPOSAL to be ready to act on,
agreeing on its wording, and then advancing it.

POLL: An informal request for a "yes-no" expression of opinion on some
ISSUE, or a selection of options.

PROPONENT(S): The author(s) of a PROPOSAL, MOTION, AMENDMENT, or SUBSTITUTE
MOTION, who shall develop and PUBLISH the BASIS therefor.

PROPOSAL: A formal, declarative call for action on some ISSUE, phrased so a=
s
to be amenable to being either accepted or rejected; expected to result fro=
m
a DISCUSSION of a SUGGESTION.  A PROPOSAL is DEBATED, then in agreed-upon
form rises to the level of a MOTION.

PUBLISH: To post on an appropriate mailing list.

RECOGNITION: The act of PUBLISHING a declaration that a particular PROPOSAL=
,
MOTION, AMENDMENT, or SUBSTITUTE MOTION has entered into the FLOW CHART.

REPORT: A communication requested and received, in the course of a
DISCUSSION or DEBATE, in which a member sets out the result of an
INVESTIGATION into some factual background of an ISSUE; also a statement of
the result of a VOTE.

SECOND: An expression by at least one person other than the PROPONENT of a
MOTION, AMENDMENT or SUBSTITUTE MOTION that is in favor thereof.

SUBSTITUTE MOTION: A MOTION offered to replace an existing MOTION, and that
annuls the central point of the original MOTION.

SUGGESTION: An expression that there may exist some problem, some useful
course of action, or any other matter that falls within the scope of the
DNSO. It is expected that the interchange of suggestions through DISCUSSION
will result in establishing an ISSUE that may develop into a PROPOSAL.

TIME-LINE: A schedule that results from a CALL FOR ACTION that allows for
specific tasks to be performed in accordance with the FLOW CHART and
TIME-LINE GUIDE.

TIME-LINE GUIDE: An agreed-upon minimum, optimum and maximum duration for
each of the procedures of the General Assembly as identified in the FLOW
CHART, from time to time amended as necessary. The credibility of any resul=
t
from a CALL FOR ACTION depends upon the fairness and timeliness (whether
slow or fast) by which                 each process is carried out.
=20
VOTE: The formal procedure for determining the passage or not of a MOTION.
 =20

prepared by William S. Lovell and Joanna Lane   Last revised Sunday, July
15, 2001

=20

- --MS_Mac_OE_3080509047_849831_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Announce: Best Practices - Part II, Flow Chart</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><B>BEST PRACTICES - Part II &nbsp;(Flow Chart)=
 is now published at:-<BR>
</B></FONT><BR>
<FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">HTML version: http://www.paradigm.nu/~istakeho=
lder/flowchart.htm<BR>
<BR>
PDF version: http://www.paradigm.nu/~istakeholder/flowchart.pdf (466 Kb)<BR=
>
<BR>
Zipped PDF version: http://www.paradigm.nu/~istakeholder/flowchart.zip (234=
 Kb)<BR>
<BR>
_____________________________________________________________________<BR>
<BR>
This is best reviewed together with Part I - (Introduction, Principles and =
Definitions), copied below.<BR>
Part III - (Timeline Guide), which gives the optimum time that should be al=
lowed for each process to take place, is work in progess that will be publis=
hed in due course. <BR>
______________________________________________________________________<BR>
<BR>
<H2>BEST PRACTICES - Part I<BR>
</H2></FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Times"><BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">The General Assembly of ICANN is intend=
ed to serve as an advisory body on issues important to the function of ICANN=
, and that lie within the area of responsibility of the DNSO. &nbsp;Contribu=
tions by the General Assembly are to be based upon a consensus of the opinio=
ns of its members. Consensus can only be achieved, however, when there are c=
learly defined ISSUES on which decisions can be based, and mechanisms that p=
rovide all General Assembly members with the opportunity both to voice their=
 opinions and themselves to generate the ISSUES, and their solutions, that w=
ill be treated. This outline, with its PRINCIPLES, DEFINITIONS, and FLOW CHA=
RT and its associated TIME-LINES, is intended to set out a system of BEST PR=
ACTICES that will provide that mechanism. <BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Times"><BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">By following these BEST PRACTICES, it i=
s believed that:-<BR>
<BR>
(a) substantive decisions can be reached more expeditiously; <BR>
(b) participants in the process can see positive results from their contrib=
utions, and thus feel more to be a part of the functioning of ICANN; and <BR=
>
(c) the factual BASIS underlying an ultimate VOTE to be taken will have bee=
n provided, and the course of the process will have been fully demonstrated,=
 whereby the result of that VOTE will be accorded the full respect that is i=
ts due.<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Times"><BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">In short, these BEST PRACTICES are inte=
nded to set out a systematic process in which the occurrence of vigorous DIS=
CUSSION and DEBATE is there for all to see, the formulation therefrom of a d=
efinite position is achieved, and a final VOTE that reaches a conclusion is =
taken, thus to provide weight to and evidence for a legitimate claim of cons=
ensus within the General Assembly.<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Times"><BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><B><U>CALL FOR ACTION<BR>
</U></B></FONT><B><FONT FACE=3D"Times"><BR>
</FONT></B><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">The general thrust of these BEST PR=
ACTICES centers on a single concept -- the CALL FOR ACTION which, if followe=
d through to a conclusion, will result in a MOTION being put to a VOTE of th=
e full membership of the General Assembly. These BEST PRACTICES are intended=
 to help direct activity of the General Assembly to achieve that goal, throu=
gh steps that will give every voice an opportunity to be heard, while at the=
 same time avoiding fractionating or splintering of the effort, in each case=
 by keeping the focus of General Assembly members on the ISSUE at hand. <BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Times"><BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">This procedure is simple enough that it=
s administration could be carried out by a GA SECRETARIAT, or by any person =
who would not himself or herself hold strong views on the ISSUE at hand, but=
 would simply facilitate in an impartial manner.<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Times"><BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><B><U>PRINCIPLES<BR>
</U></B></FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Times"><BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Participants recognize that the work of=
 the General Assembly in general, commencing with a Member=B9s CALL FOR ACTION=
, is driven by a set of PRINCIPLES. The design of these BEST PRACTICES has b=
een based upon the principle that both the mechanism itself and the TIME-LIN=
ES established therewith will ensure that the overall process shall:<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Times"><BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">1. Be participatory<BR>
2. Be sustainable<BR>
3. Be legitimate and accessible to people<BR>
4. Be transparent<BR>
5. Be able to develop the resources and methods of a General Assembly<BR>
6. Be able to mobilize necessary resources and expertise<BR>
7. Be efficient and effective in resource use<BR>
8. Engender and command respect and trust<BR>
9. Be accountable to the public trust<BR>
10. Be able to define and take ownership of recommended actions <BR>
11. Be enabling and facilitative<BR>
12. Be regulatory rather than controlling<BR>
13. Be able to deal with temporal issues<BR>
14. Be service oriented<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Times"><BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><B><U>STANDARD DEFINITIONS<BR>
</U></B></FONT><B><FONT FACE=3D"Times"><BR>
</FONT></B><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Efficient communication between mem=
bers of a General Assembly that is operating worldwide in an on-line environ=
ment, using email lists as its primary tool, requires a common understanding=
 of the words used to describe its BEST PRACTICES. Listed in alphabetical or=
der.<BR>
</FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Times"><BR>
</FONT><UL><LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><B>AMENDMENT</B>: A change in w=
ording in a PROPOSAL or MOTION that does not annul its essential point.<BR>
</FONT></UL><FONT FACE=3D"Times"><BR>
</FONT><UL><LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><B>BASIS</B>: On-line descripti=
on of purported facts that underlie some particular ISSUE, that explains why=
 there is a need for action, indicates the nature and extent of action being=
 sought, and how that action would resolve the ISSUE and impact current oper=
ations, thus justifying the formulation of a PROPOSAL or the offering of a M=
OTION.<BR>
</FONT></UL><FONT FACE=3D"Times"><BR>
</FONT><UL><LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><B>CALL FOR ACTION</B>: </FONT>=
<FONT FACE=3D"Times"> </FONT><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">A demand that action=
 be taken with regard to an ISSUE.<BR>
</FONT></UL><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"> <BR>
</FONT><UL><LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><B>DEBATE</B>: On-line exchange=
 of comment concerning the <I>merits</I> of a formal PROPOSAL or a MOTION.<B=
R>
</FONT></UL><FONT FACE=3D"Times"><BR>
</FONT><UL><LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><B>DISCUSSION</B>: On-line exch=
ange of comments concerning some matter of importance in the functioning of =
ICANN that lies within the scope of responsibility of the General Assembly, =
that <I>clarifies </I>an ISSUE and <I>examines </I>the BASIS therefor, typic=
ally arising from one or more SUGGESTIONS, CALLS FOR ACTION and from which m=
ay arise the formulation of a definitive PROPOSAL.<BR>
</FONT></UL><FONT FACE=3D"Times"><BR>
</FONT><UL><LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><B>FLOW CHART</B>: A graphic re=
presentation of processes that make up the various procedures of the General=
 Assembly and how they may fit together; used to determine TIME-LINES for de=
aling with ISSUES.<BR>
</FONT></UL><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><BR>
</FONT><UL><LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><B>GA SECRETARIAT</B>: An offic=
e charged with the administration of voting procedures, including the settin=
g of TIME-LINES to assist the General Assembly with addressing ISSUES in a t=
imely fashion according to BEST PRACTICES.<BR>
</FONT></UL><FONT FACE=3D"Times"><BR>
</FONT><UL><LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><B>INVESTIGATION</B>: A search =
for and compilation of documents and the like so as to help provide a BASIS =
for a PROPOSAL or MOTION.<BR>
</FONT></UL><FONT FACE=3D"Times"><BR>
</FONT><UL><LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><B>ISSUE</B>: A condition of fa=
ct thought to exist on which it is believed that some action may be required=
.<BR>
</FONT></UL><FONT FACE=3D"Times"><BR>
</FONT><UL><LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><B>MOTION</B>: A formal, declar=
ative call for action on some issue, phrased so as to be amenable to being e=
ither accepted or rejected, and being in an agreed-upon form that could be p=
resented to the General Assembly for a VOTE. A MOTION results from RECOGNITI=
ON of a PROPOSAL to be ready to act on, agreeing on its wording, and then ad=
vancing it.<BR>
</FONT></UL><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><BR>
</FONT><UL><LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><B>POLL</B>: An informal reques=
t for a &quot;yes-no&quot; expression of opinion on some ISSUE, or a selecti=
on of options. <BR>
</FONT></UL><FONT FACE=3D"Times"><BR>
</FONT><UL><LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><B>PROPONENT(S)</B>: The author=
(s) of a PROPOSAL, MOTION, AMENDMENT, or SUBSTITUTE MOTION, who shall develo=
p and PUBLISH the BASIS therefor.<BR>
</FONT></UL><FONT FACE=3D"Times"><BR>
</FONT><UL><LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><B>PROPOSAL</B>: A formal, decl=
arative call for action on some ISSUE, phrased so as to be amenable to being=
 either accepted or rejected; expected to result from a DISCUSSION of a SUGG=
ESTION. &nbsp;A PROPOSAL is DEBATED, then in agreed-upon form rises to the l=
evel of a MOTION. &nbsp;<BR>
</FONT></UL><FONT FACE=3D"Times"><BR>
</FONT><UL><LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><B>PUBLISH</B>: To post on an a=
ppropriate mailing list.<BR>
</FONT></UL><FONT FACE=3D"Times"><BR>
</FONT><UL><LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><B>RECOGNITION</B>: The act of =
PUBLISHING a declaration that a particular PROPOSAL, MOTION, AMENDMENT, or S=
UBSTITUTE MOTION has entered into the FLOW CHART.<BR>
</FONT></UL><FONT FACE=3D"Times"><BR>
</FONT><UL><LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><B>REPORT</B>: A communication =
requested and received, in the course of a DISCUSSION or DEBATE, in which a =
member sets out the result of an INVESTIGATION into some factual background =
of an ISSUE; also a statement of the result of a VOTE.<BR>
</FONT></UL><FONT FACE=3D"Times"><BR>
</FONT><UL><LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><B>SECOND</B>: An expression by=
 at least one person other than the PROPONENT of a MOTION, AMENDMENT or SUBS=
TITUTE MOTION that is in favor thereof.<BR>
</FONT></UL><FONT FACE=3D"Times"><BR>
</FONT><UL><LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><B>SUBSTITUTE</B> <B>MOTION</B>=
: A MOTION offered to replace an existing MOTION, and that annuls the centra=
l point of the original MOTION.<BR>
</FONT></UL><FONT FACE=3D"Times"><BR>
</FONT><UL><LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><B>SUGGESTION</B>: An expressio=
n that there may exist some problem, some useful course of action, or any ot=
her matter that falls within the scope of the DNSO. It is expected that the =
interchange of suggestions through DISCUSSION will result in establishing an=
 ISSUE that may develop into a PROPOSAL.<BR>
</FONT></UL><FONT FACE=3D"Times"><BR>
</FONT><UL><LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><B>TIME-LINE</B>: A schedule th=
at results from a CALL FOR ACTION that allows for specific tasks to be perfo=
rmed in accordance with the FLOW CHART and TIME-LINE GUIDE.<BR>
</FONT></UL><FONT FACE=3D"Times"><BR>
</FONT><UL><LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><B>TIME-LINE GUIDE</B>: An agre=
ed-upon minimum, optimum and maximum duration for each of the procedures of =
the General Assembly as identified in the FLOW CHART, from time to time amen=
ded as necessary. The credibility of any result from a CALL FOR ACTION depen=
ds upon the fairness and timeliness (whether slow or fast) by which &nbsp;&n=
bsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;=
&nbsp;&nbsp;each process is carried out.<BR>
</FONT></UL><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"> <BR>
</FONT><UL><LI><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><B>VOTE</B>: The formal procedu=
re for determining the passage or not of a MOTION.<BR>
</FONT></UL><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"> &nbsp;<BR>
</FONT><BR>
<FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><HR ALIGN=3DCENTER SIZE=3D"3" WIDTH=3D"95%"></FONT>
<P ALIGN=3DRIGHT>
<FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"><FONT SIZE=3D"2">prepared by William S. Lovell a=
nd Joanna Lane &nbsp;&nbsp;Last revised Sunday, July 15, 2001<BR>
</FONT></FONT><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<P>
<FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"> <BR>
</FONT><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>

- --MS_Mac_OE_3080509047_849831_MIME_Part--

- --
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: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 04:41:47 -0600
From: "Consulting First" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:  Temporary Suspension of Batch Delete Process 

At the url:
http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr10aug01.htm

It states in part:
ICANN's Domain Name Supporting Organization has already been advised of the
situation and has begun to discuss possible measures for handling expiring
names. Members of the community are urged to participate in the DNSO's
discussions, so that all viewpoints can be considered in developing measures
for fair allocation of expiring names.

Is this where the discussion is?  In my opinion, it looks more like VeriSign
Global Registry Services is calling all the shots under the pretense of it
being open for discussion.  A discussion would seem to involve some talk
about a response instead of just rehashing a previously sent email.

Danny made a good point.  Why not just sanction registrars abusing the
system?  For example, if you have some people breaking the speed limit in a
car, you pull them over and give them a ticket.  Seems like this is another
making of a mountain out of a mole hill.

Regards,

Greg Abrams
Consulting First, Inc.

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 11:59 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: Temporary Suspension of Batch Delete Process

Dear members,

I have just received the following reply from VeriSign Global Registry
Services:

Dear Danny,

Thank you for contacting VeriSign Global Registry Services.

The actions taken are in line with both the Registry-Registrar Agreement and
our agreement with ICANN.  All other information can be found in the email.

Best Regards,

William C.
Customer Service
VeriSign Global Registry Services

It's nice to know that we can get such timely and informative responses to
our queries from Verisign.

- --
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: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 07:16:14 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

Joanna,

I do not have any preconceived ideas about how outreach should happen.  I
think it will vary by issue and by region of the world.  But I think it will
be a very long time, if ever, before such outreach can be limited to
participants within DNSO processes such as the GA and the constituencies.  

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 5:03 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Roeland Meyer'; 'Sotiris Sotiropoulos'; ga
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

Chuck,

I'd just like to pick up a couple of your points.

on 8/12/01 8:13 AM, Gomes, Chuck at [email-masked] wrote:
<snip>

> And possibly
> more importantly, the issue of representativeness of the overall Internet
> community that is impacted by the issue at stake needs to be dealt with.

The fact that not many people belong to DNSO should not disempower DNSO, or
by that logic, we could never achieve anything without enrolling every
single domain name registrant in the entire world. Certainly I think they
should have the option, but in reality, it will never happen.

If we assume that present holes in DNSO are filled by the new Individuals
Constituency that allows direct membership in DNSO of the Registrants
Community, with all the voting rights and seats on the NC etc. that confers,
then it could be argued that the overall Internet community (excluding At
Large users who do not have domain names) has the opportunity to
participate, whether or not they chose to avail themselves of it.

As you have correctly identified, efforts at Outreach are crucial, and I
would add to that, the need to have internal structures and procedures that
can be scaled to larger numbers.

Now, are you suggesting that as part of internal consensus building
procedures, there should be a requirement to undertake external
investigations, and to admit reports from gallup polls, public interest
organizations and other such externally prepared data, or are you saying
that we may rely on our own internal DNSO procedures provided that we
undertake a reasonable amount of outreach to attract new participants into
the process? And what is a reasonable amount of outreach anyway?

Regards,
Joanna 

> Consensus of some small subset of the affected community should never be
> generalized to mean consensus of the larger community.  At a bare minimum
> there should be a documented outreach to the broader community and
> documented results of that outreach.  If in the end, the outreach efforts
> are deemed to be reasonable and members of the broader community are
> non-responsive, then it may be acceptable to conclude that they are not
> interested and move forward with a consensus based on those who are
> interested.
> 
> The problem with the process I am talking about is that is a very
difficult
> process.  It takes lots of time and effort. Most of us want a simple
formula
> and I contend that there is not a simple formula.  I firmly believe that
the
> complexity and difficulty of the consensus process is a fact of life if we
> truly want a bottoms-up consensus process.  Anything less rigorous will be
a
> sham.
> 
> Finally, one of the underlying assumptions that seems to be prevalent is
> that we should always be able to come to a consensus position.  It is not
> only possible but also reasonable that on many issues it will not be
> possible to reach a community consensus.  That is perfectly okay.  In
those
> cases we should simply let market forces work as freely as possible and
> allow diversity so that consumers can choose what best meets their needs
and
> interests.
> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roeland Meyer [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 4:05 PM
> To: 'Sotiris Sotiropoulos'; ga
> Subject: RE: [ga] Consensus... Definition?
> 
> 
> I might point out that such a soft definition of consensus carries very
> little weight in congress.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos [mailto:[email-masked]]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 2:54 PM
>> To: ga
>> Subject: [ga] Consensus... Definition?
>> 
>> 
>> Roberto,
>> 
>> Forgive me for saying so, but your call for a definition of
>> "consensus" is
>> IMHO some kind of diversionary tactic.  Why, and to what
>> end...?  In its last
>> published consensus-based document the WG-Review suggested
>> the definition of
>> "consensus" as a 2/3 majority of vote participants.  Did you
>> not read it? 
>> Must we have the same discussion all over again?  On the
>> other hand, we have
>> the very interesting declaration of what "consensus" means in
>> ICANN terms:
>> 
>>> From a July 8, 1999, ICANN correspondence to The Honorable
>> Thomas J. Bliley,
>> Jr. Chairman of The House Committee on Commerce, from Esther
>> Dyson on behalf
>> of ICANN:
>> 
>> "Because there were at the time of ICANN's formation and
>> remain today critics
>> of either its bylaws or particular actions taken since its
>> creation, it is
>> useful to define what we mean when
>> we use the word "consensus." It obviously does not mean
>> "unanimous," nor is it
>> intended to
>> reflect some precise counting of heads pro or con on a
>> particular subject,
>> since in this
>> environment that is simply not possible. What it does mean is
>> that, on any
>> particular issue,
>> proposed policies are generated from public input and
>> published to the world
>> at large, comments
>> are received and publicly discussed, and an attempt is made,
>> from the entirety
>> of that process, to articulate the consensus position as best
>> it can be
>> perceived.
>> 
>> "Obviously, to the extent any individual or group undertakes
>> to articulate a
>> consensus of
>> the overall community, its work is useful only to the extent
>> it accurately
>> reflects the consensus. ICANN is no exception to this rule.
>> Unfortunately,
>> there is no litmus test that can objectively render a
>> judgment as to whether
>> this standard has been met in any particular
>> situation. Perhaps the best test is whether the community at large is
>> comfortable with the
>> process and the results, and the best gauge of that is
>> probably the level of
>> continuing participation in the process, and voluntary
>> compliance with the
>> policies produced by that process. "This is, necessarily, a
>> more ambiguous
>> standard than counting votes or some other
>> objectively measurable criteria, and it inevitably means less
>> efficient, more
>> messy, less linear
>> movement, as the perceived community consensus shifts and
>> adapts to change, or
>> as perceptions
>> of that consensus themselves are refined or change. Such a
>> process is easily
>> subject to criticism and attack by those not satisfied with
>> the process or the
>> results; after all,
>> in the absence of some objective determination, it is impossible to
>> definitively refute claims that the consensus has been
>> misread, and loud noise
>> can sometimes be mistaken for broad support for any
>> proposition advanced.
>> 
>> "Certainly there are those who do not accept that particular
>> ICANN policies or
>> decisions to
>> date accurately reflect the community consensus, and there
>> are some who are
>> not comfortable
>> with the process that has been employed to determine the
>> community consensus.
>> No doubt
>> reasonable people can differ on both policy and process, and
>> certainly there
>> are many opinions
>> about practically everything on which ICANN has acted. Still,
>> it appears that
>> the process has
>> actually worked remarkably well considering the difficulty of
>> the task, as
>> measured by the fact that most of the global Internet
>> communities continue to
>> participate in this consensus development process.'
>> 
>> --
>> So what's the deal with this call for "consensus" definition
>> Roberto?  How
>> about a domain name definition instead?  It would go a lot
>> further in cleaning
>> up the mess created by the ambiguous wordslingers who crafted
>> the entire
>> notion of web-policy by fiat ably branded with the obscure
>> term: "consensus".
>> This whole topic stinks!
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> 
>> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>> --
>> 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
> 
- --
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: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 07:43:05 -0400
From: [email-masked] (admin)
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:  Temporary Suspension of Batch Delete Process 

You will find in the end that the decisions will benefit the Verisign
registrar in some way and they will never give a clear explanations of why
specific actions were taken.  This is how it uaually goes.

Chuck Gomes has been doing this type of thing for years.

Russ Smith

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Consulting First
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 6:42 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Temporary Suspension of Batch Delete Process

At the url:
http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr10aug01.htm

It states in part:
ICANN's Domain Name Supporting Organization has already been advised of the
situation and has begun to discuss possible measures for handling expiring
names. Members of the community are urged to participate in the DNSO's
discussions, so that all viewpoints can be considered in developing measures
for fair allocation of expiring names.

Is this where the discussion is?  In my opinion, it looks more like VeriSign
Global Registry Services is calling all the shots under the pretense of it
being open for discussion.  A discussion would seem to involve some talk
about a response instead of just rehashing a previously sent email.

Danny made a good point.  Why not just sanction registrars abusing the
system?  For example, if you have some people breaking the speed limit in a
car, you pull them over and give them a ticket.  Seems like this is another
making of a mountain out of a mole hill.

Regards,

Greg Abrams
Consulting First, Inc.

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 11:59 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: Temporary Suspension of Batch Delete Process

Dear members,

I have just received the following reply from VeriSign Global Registry
Services:

Dear Danny,

Thank you for contacting VeriSign Global Registry Services.

The actions taken are in line with both the Registry-Registrar Agreement and
our agreement with ICANN.  All other information can be found in the email.

Best Regards,

William C.
Customer Service
VeriSign Global Registry Services

It's nice to know that we can get such timely and informative responses to
our queries from Verisign.

- --
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: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 09:51:31 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Consensus... Definition?

on 8/13/01 7:16 AM, Gomes, Chuck at [email-masked] wrote:

> Joanna,
> 
> I do not have any preconceived ideas about how outreach should happen.  I
> think it will vary by issue and by region of the world.  But I think it will
> be a very long time, if ever, before such outreach can be limited to
> participants within DNSO processes such as the GA and the constituencies.
> 
> Chuck

Chuck,

This is the first time I have heard the DNSO referred to as "outreach". I
thought that we were the ones responsible for doing the outreach, as part of
formulating policy recommendations, not the subject of it, for somebody else
to evaluate and formulate the recommendations.

Allow me to rephrase the questions you didn't answer. This is not a test,
it's an inquiry. Do you think that as part of bottom-up ICANN consensus
development, that the NC and/or Constituencies and/or the GA should consider
involving non-members, such as public interest organizations, assimilating
and deliberating on their reports prior to making policy recommendations? If
so, which part of the DNSO is best qualified to undertake this task? Also,
do you think that the DNSO should develop and implement a policy for
outreach to attract new participants into the bottom-up ICANN consensus
development process for reasons of reducing the limitations of the currently
small subset of participants? If so, how can we tackle this without funding?

Regards,
Joanna

- --
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 #667
************************