Re: [wg-review] Regarding Veto Power

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Just want to say that if the general frame was according mines, that
consensus management is against my own approach. My view of a
consensus is that it can be oberved or not, but not decided. The case
propose by Jonathan does not hold because Danny's proposition does
not hold. In no way a group can decide about a veto in my own vision:
vetos are to be documented, understood and accepted by everyone
having a clear understanding of them - even of different opinion.
You do not play democracy with consensus, you just check that
everyone thinks according to the same lines.

Nothing formal. KISS.
Jefsey



On 19:37 28/03/01, babybows.com said:
>Jonathan Weinberg was kind enough to forward to me these remarks regarding
>the proposal advanced by Jefsey Morfin:
>
>1.      Under these rules, it would appear that 10% of the GA could
>self-organize as the "oatmeal body," and then the *same* 10% could
>self-organize as the "porridge body," and have the two votes necessary to
>block consensus (since, after all, "no individual or entity shall be
>excluded from participation in a Body merely because of participation in
>another Body.")  Compare this language from the 2/4/99 "Paris draft" for the
>DNSO:
>
>a. Members of the General Assembly shall self-organize into diverse
>constituencies. No member shall be a member of more than one constituency.
>The initial constituencies shall be recognized by the ICANN Board based on
>the following criteria:  Constituencies other than the constituency
>representing registries, shall represent at least 5% of the members of the
>General Assembly.  Constituencies shall be open to membership without regard
>to geographic
>location.  Constituencies shall adopt open and transparent processes that
>comply with these Rules and the ICANN Bylaws.  Constituencies shall not be
>formed or recognized insofar as they are based on geographic location,
>religious affiliation, governmental affiliation, or membership in any
>particular corporation or organization.
>
>2.      I suspect that even without that problem, under these rules, the
>DNSO could *never* produce a consensus declaration on any remotely
>interesting issue.  For example, we could not have gotten a declaration in
>favor of adding new gTLDs, since both IPC and B&C were hostile.  That's true
>with the eight initial bodies you propose, and it's even more true if the
>number of bodies grows over time, but the veto of any two of the (many)
>bodies can still block a resolution.  Part of this relates to a
>contradiction at ICANN's heart -- ICANN purports to operate by consensus,
>but it was formed to decide controversial policy issues for which consensus
>is unavailable.  But to resolve that contradiction by requiring that all GA
>resolutions have the acquiescence of all bodies (or all but one) will likely
>make the DNSO incapable of passing anything, which will by default leave
>ICANN staff in the position of making all of the decisions themselves.
>
>Jon
>-------------------------------------------------
>
>Jonathan's discerning comments are well appreciated.  The last line of the
>proposed resolution that reads, 'The veto of any two such bodies will thwart
>a declaration of consensus by the GA' should probably be eliminated.  As
>long as the entire GA votes on any consensus policy formulation (thereby
>making its collective will known), there is no truly overriding need for a
>veto mechanism.   Such mechanisms only allow for the politics of "capture".
>This is not what is needed in a bottoms-up organization.
>
>There is also merit in the Paris draft figure of 5%, (about 15 members in
>view of the current size of the voting registry).  10% might be too unwieldy
>at a time when probably less than 30% of the members of the voting registry
>actually participate on either the GA or WG list.
>
>Best regards,
>Danny Younger
>
>
>--
>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

--
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