Re: [council] Request for waiver to the Names Council
If there is such a 'plot'' noone has told me about it .But ,I grant you, its clever! (grin)
I believe that every Board member wants there to be broad based discussion of all significant issues.I know that consensus is what should be the basis for all significant policy decisions and the Board wishes that to be the case.Nothing in the new ''world'' changes that.Hopefully the new format for Support organizations will encourage even broader community involvement and the opportunity to channel opinions and discussion into a consensus ,Or,a clear lack thereof. If clear con
sensus comes to the Board it is unlikely to decide against it unless there is a very cogent reason for so doing. This same right exists under the current By-Laws.The Board was not and could not reasonably be absolutely bound by the consensus rule ,or the Board itself would be a 'lame duck'.However, not one Board member has ever expressed the view to me that this is some kind of ''power and authority'' struggle.
The whole idea of ICANN is input from all sectors of the community including all the geographic regions that reaches some consensus balance or compromise and then for the Board to generally base its policy decisions on such consensus. The Board would not be creating So,s with new mandates to help develop policy and new SO,s such as the ccTld or the At-Large if it didnt want serious input and a real and better effort at finding community consensus ,which has been an elusive target at
Harold you have come up with excellent and positive suggestions time and again.You are an eloquent champion for those whose primary concern is that ICANN be truly democratic and be responsive to the values and opinions of the non-commercial users of the internet.If you continue the process of identifying and organizing that community and encouraging increased participation internationally...it will be heard AND listened to(as it always hasbeen).It will be balanced fairly as are the
concerns and issues of all constituents..
.BUT not every argument is successful,as you know.
We must all realize that and being wary if you must,not necessarily assume a systemic bias is or will be at work.The Directors are 'people' and most with no direct commercial interest in the internet (in the ICANN context)..we worry about privacy and individual users etc because thats who we are!
"Harold J. Feld" wrote:
> I touched on this briefly at Today's NC conference call in the context
> of how thw Wait List Service Task force should work.
> The original model of the DNSO (and the ASO and the PSO) in ICANN was
> that the DNSO would create policy through a consensus process. It
> required the DNSO to identify consensus. This it did via a two-thirds
> vote of the consticuencies through their NC representatives.
> _How_ the DNSO identified consensus beyond the voting method was never
> clear. Public comments were clearly intended to play some roll, but
> because individuals have no formal vote in the DNSO, there is no
> requirement that any DNSO vote reflect the public comments. Nor was it
> clear whether representatives to the NC voted their own opinions or only
> formal, consticuency based approved positions.
> Over the three years that the DNSO has been operative, a number of
> approaches have been tried. What appeared to be emerging, prior to
> Accra and the ICANN reform, was a model where the Names Council created
> task forces to develop initial recommendations, witht he TFs taking
> public comments into account but deciding recommendation by discussion
> and formal vote among members. The NC then debated these in
> consultation with their consticuencies, with different consticuencies
> having different expectations for how closely the NC rep must consult
> with the consticuency before taking action.
> The most complete expression of this decision-making process was the
> .org recommendations set to the Board at Accra.
> ICANN reform and the Board's action at Accra changed this model
> irreversibly. The statement that the DNSO merely offers "advice" that
> the Board is free to take or not logically must shift the means by which
> the DNSO acts. The DNSO becomes much less a policy body and becomes a
> consultive body.
> In the new model that has emerged since Accra, as playing out in the
> transfers task force WLS discussion and seems to be enshrined in the
> current blueprint approved in Bucharest, the roll of the DNSO and its
> task forces is to provide a menu of suggestions for the Board to
> consider, which chronicles the debate within the community at the DNSO
> level. Thus, the transfer task force will present the NC with a report
> that summarizes the public comments, the range of opinions expressed by
> the constituencies, and makes several sets of recommendations. The NC
> will discuss it, providing more fformalized feedback from the
> consticuencies, and will forward this chronicle of the debate and
> smorgasbord of recommendations up tot he Board. The Board, however,
> retains to itself the right to determine any set of actions, even those
> entirely inconsistent with the final DNSO report (presumably because the
> Board has a greater sense of community consensus, since ICANN Board
> decisions are supposed to be based on consensus).
> In this new model, Board liason makes good sense. Since the Board is
> the ultimate decisionmaker on policy, the sooner and more informed the
> Board, the better. More importantly, it provides the Board with the
> opportuntity to control the flow of debate from the beginning. Since
> there is clearly no value in exploring pathways and policies not
> palatable to the Board, no matter how popular they may be with the
> consticuencies or the public at large, the Board liason can effectively
> exercise a veto power early in the process and ensure that a carefully
> guided debate provides suitable implementation mechanisms for whatever
> outcome the Board prefers (or, at the least, prevent the development of
> a consensus opinion the Board will reject as unpalatable or incosistent
> with its goals).
> Harold Feld
> Jonathan Cohen wrote:
> > Marilyn,
> > Noone in the ICANN 'family' has done more,spoken out more,worked harder or longer, or brought more committment and passion to the arena than you.
> > I have watched with amazement for more than 4 years and still remember our 1st meeting in 'DC" where your knowledge and straightforwardness so impressed me (stunned may be better word)As you say,you and I and the Board may hold different views on issues of the moment but the Board as a whole and your DNSO Directors are committed deeply to a better ,fairer,open,relevant ICANN and that includes an effective Policy Arm the DNSO or its logical successor
> > So I return the Thanks with respect and affection .We will share your thoughts with the whole Board and we remain available to work with,and listen to the DNSO.Alix and Amadeu share my feelings and both ensure that DNSO issues are heard at the Board and weighed in with due consideration.
> > Part of the 'new' structure may be to adopt a practice I suggested 2 years ago to Esther...to have specific(logical) Directors assigned to liase directly with the various SO,s and Advisory Groups to ensure that all pertinent info and views (majority and minority) get to the Board 'accurately' and on a timely basis.This will also allow the 'community' to know where,to whom to direct their concerns ,facts,questions,lobbying etc ? what do you all think (southern style question!)
> > Jonathan
Ottawa, ON Canada
Telephone: (613) 232-5300
Facsimile : (613) 563-9231
This correspondence is intended for the person to whom it is addressed
and contains information that is confidential, and/or privileged to the
named recipient, and may be proprietary in nature. It is not to be used
by any other person and/or organization. If you have received this
e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by telephone (collect)
and/or return e-mail.