[ga] Re: ICANN: already two consensuses: still three more needed
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: [ga] Re: ICANN: already two consensuses: still three more needed
- From: "Pascal Bernhard - cube" <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:17:52 +0100
- CC: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Organization: cube
- Reply-to: PBernhard@cube.de
- Sender: email@example.com
first of all apology the late response. I'm underway and my connection
is currently very bad.
2 cents about ICANN, democratic decision processes and necessity of
ICANN is an organization, which is a need. IMO it has a mission to
fulfill, but the current problem is that this mission is not defined
sharp enough. I regularly hear complaints about ICANN's mission
fulfillment, which are actually grounded on the fact that ICANN's
mission looks too fuzzy.
The organization is needed as such, because - and we all know that - a
coordination between the networks of the internet has to be defined on
a broad agreement basis. We - boroon.net - already described our sight
in two paper, which can be found on boroon.net. These papers are not
just a sight about the DNS - which is our interest and point of sight -
but is a reflexion about the network structure and its coordination as
Stability has not just to be a technical stability. It must be a
management stability as well. As such, the paper of Stuart Lynn might
be seen as too destructive. The reason of the status described therein
is a conflict between what si a management structure and the will for a
democratic structure in the form of an at large representativity.
I do not see the necessity of a democratic representance in a
management structure as far as it just manages and has rules for the
way of taking decisions. It implies that the fundament of decisions
taken must be transparent.
I see the necessity of a democratic deployment for an organization
which develops the rules, which are in fact international agreements.
The problem is: an global at large organization will have the same
problems and will get the same questions as ICANN does: what is the
legitimity of the representation. We don't live in a global political
system. I could understand that Andy Mueller-Maguhn for instance
represents Germany in a global organization, if he has been choosed by
German users, but how could he represent the interests of France?
Another point is that a base for democratic decisions is sharing the
might in three parts: law, government and justice. If we look at ICANN
as an internet governance, what it can be: the question is: where is
the parliament and where is the court? If an atlarge organization
exists: it cannot be a part of the governance. It should have the might
to nominate the governance. It should have the might to define the
rules. But not to apply them and no to decide who has which right in a
The mission of ICANN should be: apply the rules. The mission of atlarge
should be: define the rules _and_ we should think about the mission of
a third organization deciding about the resolution of conflicts.
We have in Germany a model which is very interesting, because it was
designed by americans after WW2: a federal structure which implies a
regional representation with regional democratic structures (again: 3
mights: goernment, parliament and justice) and these structures are
represented on a bigger level. It's just like the nametree, infact.
Such a system is my proposal for a consensus.
Best regards, Pascal Bernhard
On 21 Mar 2002 at 12:03, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> Vint Cerf: Jefsey, Talleyrand was right - when things are complex and
> tense, it is the time to move carefully.
> Alejandro: Jefsey, let me enter this fray. I take what seems to me your
> main point serious, well-thought position papers that address the issues
> and make concrete, workable, integral proposals. Try to avoid half-baked
> ideas and generalized lamentations about the present situation or about
> the past. That is what we need. Concentrate the efforts on them.
> Charles Shaban: Dear Jefsey and IPC members, I have to disagree with
> you, I think ICANN mission is more than the IANA, IANA functions is only
> parts of the ICANN functions. But you are correct that ICANN should
> define its functions from the beginning and stick to them. (Charles: I
> agree with you. It depends on what you name ICANN).
> David Harnand: Alejandro and others, We at New.net absolutely agree with
> you that what is needed are "concrete, workable, integral proposals" to
> solve the current problems with DNS governance.
> Bruce Young: Jefsey, If I assume your intent here is to work on separate
> point papers outside of the At Large proper, I have no problem with
> that. In fact I for one welcome as many parallel efforts as possible, as
> long as they don't overshadow or attempt to replace our At Large
> Dear all,
> from this I see that we need five consensuses and that we already have
> got two of them. I suggest we proceed in order.
> 1. first consensus (thanks to Lynn): we all agree now that the present
> ICANN cannot fulfill its missions, whatever they are.
> 2. second consensus: we all agree that the propositions of Lynn are not
> workable as such and that we need to work on them.
> 3. third (needed) consensus: we need to agree on our target. I propose
> it is "a consensus on the ICANN missions and organization". With the two
> consensuses above anything below that (even a BoD vote on a BoD
> committee proposition) will not be accepted in real life. The key is
> "consensus" not the proposition in itself.
> 4. forth (needed) consensus: we need to agree on a consensus among who
> and how. We need a lasting consensus, so we need *every* positions to be
> associated to it.
> It has to be an Internet Community Pact.
> This is why I suggest three things.
> - a clean sheet, step by step approach. We know everyone's agenda and
> feuds, no need to repeat. What we want is to find solutions which
> satisfy *every* of us. If we fail, there will be no ICANN anymore as "we
> are the ICANN" as Mike Roberts truly said.
> - to call on the largest basis of serious and professional people. In
> protecting ourselves against any capture and disrupters. I therefore
> called on Vint as a Chair and to all the currently identified
> stakeholders through any existing gouvernance oriented list. It is NOT
> to select lists/positions but to be sure people have shown they are
> concerned and who they physically are. At lowest cost.
> - to use a working method which can lead to a consensus even if only one
> single person has initially hat the final proposition. This method
> consists in a site where every positions can be linked and polled upon.
> This is the only way to build, confront and reduce into a single
> consensus serious yet opposed propositions. Polls are to help (as are
> the debates) but are *no* votes. What is important is the change in the
> polls. These changes will help progressive, step by step debates and
> agreements. The real "votes" are by the position writers: in writing
> eventually a common document. There must be no loser. This has to be a
> win/win situation for all.
> 5. ultimate (needed) consensus: what are the ICANN mission, organization
> and operations. And how to implement it as a consensus.
> We therefore need three consensus more. A consensus is to discover what
> we *already* agree upon, should some conditions be met. Once the
> consensus is uncovered, the decisions are about how to meet that
> conditions. So please let proceed step by step.
> 1. consensus number three (now): do we agree that to reach a stable
> situation we need a global consensus involving all the stake holding
> positions? That it has to be worked out in a consensual manner? that
> such a consensus will be a part of the solution?
> 2. consensus number four (after three is uncovered): do we agree that we
> want to work in an orderly and professional manner? step by step from
> clean sheet? with the largest number at hand of genuinely concerned even
> if opposing people, while preventing any risk of capture and of
> disruption? using a method permitting the clear presentation of the
> different positions and their reduction into a common agreement? that
> such an agreement will most probably depend on actions we will have to
> discuss, to agree upon and to undertake? and not to be at anyone's
> 3. Ultimate consensus (not to be discussed now): I do believe it does
> exist (otherwise why to give it a try). I could document my vision, as
> others could also do with their own today vision. We "just" have to
> adjust our visions.
> I think it can bring a far greater stability and security for all of us,
> at a drastically reduced cost, with a much broader scope of concerns
> than "mission creep" and a much larger involvement of absentees, in
> fostering innovation and in respecting cultures and national interests
> while permitting large and small operators and entrepreneurs to develop.
> It will also permit very large steps ahead in term of network
> architecture, social acceptance and economy development.
> This is when we are in the dark that we have to hope for the light. IMO,
> in this case it is not to hope, just to work it out. But since we only
> are human, it may be complex!
Geschaefte werden von Menschen gemacht...
Mail: Im See 3 - 67295 Bolanden
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html