RE: [wg-review] Regarding Veto Power

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

But, without some formality, one cannot have due-process.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:jefsey@wanadoo.fr]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 1:08 PM
> To: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] Regarding Veto Power
> 
> 
> 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
> 
--
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