DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] attending to content and consensus

Hi Caroline:

The NCDNHC has certain rules for consensus.

The final consensus in the NCDNHC is got when we
conduct online votation in the issues under

However, this is a partial consensus that is usually
achieved in the face to face meetings.  The spirit of
this is to deliver some partial results from the
NCDNCH to the Names Council and ICANN Board, but we
warning that we will circulate such results in our
mailing list and take all the necesary steps to
a total consensus resulting in our official positions
in the NCDNHC.

An example is that in Marina del Rey meeting there
were only 28 members of the NCDNHC that voted.  
The NCDNHC has a total of 184 members, with no chance
for the remaining amount of members to vote paralelly
with the face to face meeting.

In my opinion, the views of 28 members, and now that
has passing a lot of time, shows consensus amongst 184

In my opinion, the fact that three persons shows
support or not support to any document sent for the
consideration to the NCDNHC members is not a proof
that the majority of the members of the NCDNHC thinks
the same way.

I believe in democracy and for me democracy means
also to give chance to all the members to vote in
every matter under discussion in a timely manner and
more if such matters are for the consideration of the
Names Council and/or ICANN Board.

Some may think that running online votes so frequently
would harrass and bother NCDNHC members.  But no one
has asked to the NCDNHC members if they would like to
vote in all subjects dealt by the NCDNHC.  For the
recors, I would like to vote online, as a member of
the NCDNHC, on everything that means policy issues for

Dave comments and concerns are legimit.  I consider
that also is his right to complain and that such
complaint be heard, analized and considered even if it
is only one member who complains.  Legimit complains
doesn't means that the 50% of members complains about
the same think.  It is enough that only one member
complains in order to review what's going on, and if
possible take measures about it.

Yes...the constituencies has certain authonomy, but
also the By-Laws commands certain basic principles
about consensus that has to be achieved internally
in constituencies.  And, as Louis said, consensus
building is a task of the NAmes Council. It is more
than logicall that Names Council, from time to time
review constituency rules regarding internal consensus
in each constituency in order to assure that rules 
of each constituency is a valid consensus, and not
only a merely opinion of three of four members amongst
184 members and in order to not make 
silence = approoval.  

Silence doesn't means aprooval...silence only means
that maybe people is waiting the online vote as a way
to express their thoughs.   Or maybe people cannot
reach in a timely manner to mailbox to read all
messages...could mean many thinks.

I hope that in the same way that ICANN heard the
complaints of only one registrar regarding some
marketing practices made by Verisign, in the same way
the complain of one member (right now two, me) be
also and not dismissed, regardless any destructive
comments of any other member.

Best Regards


--- "Chicoine, Caroline G."
<CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com> wrote:
> Thanks Louis.  I just wanted to confirm my comment
> was not made in any way
> to legitimize or lend credibility to Mr. Crocker's
> emails.  In fact,
> Milton's responses suggest that there is more to Mr.
> Crocker's emails "than
> meets the eye."  It is exactly for this reason that
> I think we need to have
> a small committee to weed out legitimate complaints
> from mere baseless
> rantings and accusations.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Louis Touton [mailto:touton@icann.org]
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 5:08 PM
> To: Chicoine, Caroline G.
> Cc: council@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [council] attending to content and
> consensus
> Caroline,
> Complaints about constituencies are not within the
> scope of the
> Independent Review process.
> Under the bylaws (Article VI-B, Section 3),
> constituencies operate with
> a degree of autonomy.  The Names Council's role does
> not include delving
> into internal constituency matters.  On the other
> hand, the Names
> Council is responsible for managing the consensus
> building process of
> the DNSO, including determining whether a consensus
> has been
> demonstrated.  In that role it should consider the
> views of stakeholders
> who participate in the various constituencies.  As
> you suggest to
> Philip, the Names Council may wish to develop a
> framework for ensuring
> that stakeholders' views are correctly understood.
> Best regards,
> Louis Touton
> "Chicoine, Caroline G." wrote:
> > 
> > Louis, should these kind of complaints and those
> raised earlier by Danny
> > Younger be forwarded to ICANN's Advisory Committee
> on Independent Review?
> > These complaints are important to consider, but
> until you have all the
> > facts, they end up turning into numerous emails of
> bantering going back
> and
> > forth and waste alot of the council's time.
> > 
> > If not, Philip, I think that a small group of NC
> members should be set up
> to
> > deal with these types of complaints. Perhaps we
> could add this to the 2002
> > Business Plan.  It could be small like the Intake
> Committee and have a
> > similar function as ICANN's Advisory Committee on
> Independent Review.
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Crocker
> [mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com]
> > Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 4:29 PM
> > To: council@dnso.org
> > Subject: [council] attending to content and
> consensus
> > Importance: High
> > 
> > While there is some significance to the fact that
> Milton chose to resort
> to
> > his usual, ad hominem mode, let's try to focus on
> substance.
> > 
> > Namely:
> > 
> > >* The NCDNHC has expressed solid support for
> > >the principles underlying the current agreement.
> > >We are probably the only constituency that has
> > >had a vote on this, and it was passed in MdR
> > >overwhelmingly.
> > 
> > (I assume that Milton meant "underlying the
> current proposal" rather than
> > "current agreement".)
> > 
> > Milton's statements are quite simply false.  The
> working group agreed to
> > Sponsored,Restricted.  There has been no consensus
> established concerning
> > the new constraints.
> > 
> > The potential problems with S,R were raised in the
> constituency, long ago,
> > but the constituency chose to ignore those
> concerns.
> > 
> > As to the points I included in my previous note,
> there has been no
> > discussion of it, or equivalent, issues.  And
> there certainly has been
> > absolutely no development of consensus, much less
> any effort to assess it.
> > 
> > Milton is free to try to provide substantiation of
> his claim about
> > consensus.  Perhaps his resorting to attack mode
> is because he knows he
> > will not succeed.
> > 
> > d/
> > 
> > ----------
> > Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
> > Brandenburg InternetWorking 
> <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> > tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464

Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
http://www.sdnp.org.pa e-mail: vany@sdnp.org.pa

Go to http://www.getpaid4.com/cgi-bin/emailpanel.cgi?userid=659401 to receive FREE newsletters via email!
Go to http://www.getpaid4.com?sheharhore to make $$$ using YOUR OWN computer and sigining subscribers in YOUR OWN emails!

Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>