DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

Re: RE: [council] attending to content and consensus


--- Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
> I'm sure fellow councillors are tired of 
> this, but I need to set the record straight
> about a few things. 
> The other NCDNHC Adcom members and constituency
> members have tried to explain to Vany many, many
> times that we cannot have an online vote on a
> moving target. An online vote takes at least three 
> weeks to implement. We have had this draft in 
> hand for one day! The draft is changing (in details)
> quite literally daily. The final NC vote on it is in
> less than two weeks.
And?  again three supports and 181 silences means
aprooval in the discussion list?
> The current draft is quite similar in its 
> content and policy objectives to the one we
> voted on. Major noncommercial organizations such as
> the ALA, ACM, CPSR, Peacenet Korea, and all other 
> Adcom members support this. 
So this means that the opinion of the AdCom and the
opinion of ALA, ACM, CPSR, Peacenet Korea is more
important than the opinion of SDNP/Panama, APC, SV-PAL
and many other members that remains in silence?

> Moreover, Vany's
> preferred policy, which was introduced in MdR and
> died _for lack of a second_ has been repeatedly and
> overwhelmingly rejected by our membership.
Milton...I will set the things straight.  Have you
ever realized that the proposed resolution is
regarding any model to be adopted by .ORG??
Please, read it again...for the records.


The resolution proposal I made in MdR talked about
procedures...not about any position and even finalized
with "or whatever the members of the NCDNHC
concludes".    Because I have a high respect for what
members decides for me to reflect in the Names
But online vote should took place more than one month
ago within NCDNHC, and nothing of this has done.  In
fact, still Montevideo resolutions hasn't voted online
neither!!! And we have resolutions stablishing time
frames regarding online voting for aprooval of the
NCDNHC after each face to face meeting.   
> It makes a mockery of DNSO process to insist that 
> because every single detail of a policy document 
> hasn't been subjected to a full roll call vote of 
> every single constituency that we have no idea
> whether 
> it commands support. Yet this is precisely what Vany
> is saying.
Look...if a new Draft is being done, such new draft
should go, in first place for public comments.  The
new draft differs a lot from the old one.  And such
doesn't deserve public comments?

Also such draft deserve the proper consideration of
the constituency members, to see if the things they
supported are in compliance with the new draft.  And
if neceseary to produce new comments to the new draft
or if necesary to produce a new document properly
consulted to the constituency members and even voted.

> Caroline is right - we may need to set up procedures
> to handle objections, but NC needs to make it
> clear that it will not encourage vocal minorities
> who have decisively lost policy battles within a
> constituency 
I didn't lost any policy battles because I didn't
proposed any resolution stating any policy issue.  I
just proposed a procedure
to vote about .ORG draft and preeliminary comments
done by some members of the NCDNHC.

> to exploit council members' lack of
> knowledge about the internal goings-on within a 
> constituency 
You take advantage of the ignorance and/or lack of
time to discuss issues that people is expecting to be
voted in order to impose your own positions, followed
by some
other 3 or 4 fellow members that supports your points
of view with also time to follow NCDNHC discussions.

> in order to hijack a policy consensus.
> That is an abuse of our time as well as an abuse 
> of the DNSO process. 
You are abusing Milton. You are misinforming to the
Names Council regarding my proposals of resolutions
which are purely procedural and not policy.  

> I apologise to other Council members for the
> need to waste your time with this.
Yes...you should apologize...because you are
misinforming and attacking me. 

In which moment I perfomed any attack against you
inside the Names Council?  Never.  I just was
defending the right of a constituency member to point
out what he considers inconsistencies and instead of
yoiu answer properly or even propose a review our
procedues, etc, you attack me in the public list of
Names Council.

Also...just for clarify a mistypo. I said in my
previous e-mail:
"In my opinion, the views of 28 members, and now that
 has passing a lot of time, shows consensus amongst

I wanted to mean:  In my opinion, the views of 28
members, and now that has passed a lot of time,
doesn't shows consensus amongst 184 members"

Best Regards

> >>> vany_martinez@yahoo.com 01/04/02 21:09 PM >>>
> Hi Caroline:
> The NCDNHC has certain rules for consensus.
> Thefinal consensus in the NCDNHC is got when we
> conduct online votation in the issues under
> discussion.
> 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
> the 
> warning that we will circulate such results in our
> mailing list and take all the necesary steps to
> achieve
> a total consensus resulting in our official
> positions
> in the NCDNHC.

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 >>>