Re: [wg-review] misunderstanding about icann, consensus and decisions

[Eric Dierker <Eric@HI-TEK.COM>]

There is an American/English type of translation problem here.

We Southwestern Americans, as in the USA would never "take a tea" or "take a
decision". We either have or we make. Decisions are not actions but basically
opinions which must be put into action. OTOH in Hollywood they "do" teas.

So semantically I have to disagree, ICANN definitely makes decisions. What the
effect of those decisions is remains to be seen.

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> We have to be aware of the basic misunderstanding regarding the iCANN.
> The iCANN is *not* to take decisions.
>
> It is only to transform consensus about needs or action into facts.
> And SO are not to vote but to help uncovering these consensus.
>
> It is true that to at iCANN has to take decisions, buth there are
> management decision, not political decisions.
>
> Obviously iCANN would be much more understandable to all if
> it was clearly described as an association instead of a corporation.
> iCANN can only be the association of the local and market
> Internet communities.
>
> Jefsey
>
> On 02:58 29/03/01, Eric Dierker said:
> >The following snipped remarks make clear that we stray from a total concept
> >of what this consensus thing is all about.  Keep in mind this is an American
> >corporation.
> >In America boards make the decisions, not bodies.  Most corporations,
> >municipalities, Districts and counties and townships are run by some type of
> >board structure. They all have public disclosure and public comment
> >periods.  Almost all operate under some type of blue sky doctrine which
> >requires things not be done behind closed doors and without time for the
> >public to comment.
> >But then the board votes in public on the issue.  That part is formal and
> >open and democratic as in majority rules.
> >Now ICANN has this added dimension, called the requirement of consensus,
> >generally assumed to be the result of the technical nature of what it
> >oversees.  In professions where universal principals apply it is presumed
> >that professionals will reach a consensus. But that is all it is.  During
> >the public input and comment time it is desireable that the public reach
> >consensus, that is all nothing more and nothing less.
> >The BoD still takes a vote and that is the decision.  Veto power is
> >irrelevant you cannot veto a public opinion, once it is expressed it is
> >there.
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >
> >Roeland Meyer wrote:
> >
> > > But, without some formality, one cannot have due-process.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:jefsey@wanadoo.fr]
> > > >
> > > > 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:
> > > > >
> > > > >  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.
>
> --
> 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