RE: [wg-review] Document: Procedure to Establish Consensus

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|>-----Original Message-----
|>From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
|>Behalf Of Joanna Lane
|>Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 10:26 PM
|>To: Kent Crispin
|>Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
|>Subject: RE: [wg-review] Document: Procedure to Establish Consensus
|>
|>
|>On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 01:59:24AM -0500, Joanna Lane wrote:
|>>
|>> Danny Younger wrote: <snip>
|>>
|>> ICANN, by way of its Public Forums, Working Groups, General
|>Assembly, and ample mechanisms for public comment, provides venues
for
|>dialogue that are nominally adequate to convey the positions of all
|>interested parties;

I would challenge the nominally adequate.  These forums would not
appear to convey anything very much unless you read every thread.
They are also unstructured in process and have no defined outcomes.
As such they are not a valid vehicle for individuals to express their
opinions in any meaningful way.

|>a new constituency is not needed merely to express a new set of
|>opinions.

If the purpose is to provide meaningful representation and to promote
participation, then I would consider it paramount to ensure there were
structured forums for wide spread participation.  I would much rather
see hundreds of constituencies with memberships of less than 1,000
than 6 constituencies with memberships in the tens or hundreds of
thousands.

The only reason I can see for limiting the number of constituencies
(that have valid representative status) would be to limit
participation and to allow for greater control by a minority.

Even this forum, with the tight deadline and limited publicity is
restrictive with regards to participation.

Dassa

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html