Re: [wg-review] Re: DNSO Study

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Danny and Sotiris,
these are too long sentences to read for a clear dicsussion. May I say that it
boils down to the original conflict I had with Joop Teemstra at the 
begining of
the WG-Review (we discussed and agreed at length on our different approaches
and full agreement afterward) :

-  one says that Constituencies should be removed and the NC to be elected
    by the GA
- the other says the Constituencies do exist for now and there is a need for
   an IDNH constituency.

This created the clash between me and Joop, because we had no time to
coordinate and some noise came from newbies do not understanding yet that
we worked together in the same direction.

My position was to say both a right, and let prepare them practically un using
the first day proposition of Karl Auerbach of Center of Interest or SIG.

1. let start the things moving in having a Center of Interest created at GA
     level - no authorisation needed (all the more than Danny is now the Chair
     and got our support for that): on ML, one site by the first interested 
person,
     one link to the DNSO/GA site. Let work with "position links" towards a
     consensus: all the stakeholders wishing to participate may have a link to
     the CI site for a position statement (competences and discussion status
     may be easily evaluated this way be new/occasionnal participants). The
     target is to progressively reduce the difference betwwen positions to 
reach
     step by step consensus.

2. let create a coordination ML between the CI including a reprsentative
     designated by each constituency.

This way we have the possible future solution in place. The mechanic for
Special Interest Group set-up and a possible alternative to the NC.

3. let push for the IDNH Constituency because today this is the system.
    But at the same time let explain that the "Constituency" word is poor.
    There is alrady a real difference between English and American meaning.
    When translated into French this is quite an opposite meaning. When
    explained to most of the non north-west European culture it is hermetic.
    So let push - all of us - for a clearer word like SIG, or Commission. The
    ccTLDs are heading toward ccTLD WWA (WorldWide Alliance).

4. Let respect and cooperate with the NC. In taking advantage of the tripartite
     possibility. The CIs discusse, the GA proposes, the NC endorses. IMHO
     the NC should be used as a Wise People Reveiwer of the BoD. The NC
     has shown they cannot propose, but they can have an measured opinion
     in the VRSN case. The advantage is that does not change anything and
     whatever the designation of the NC members (with current constituencies)
     he difference is not big. Obviously that the IDNH SIG becomes a
     constituency would help.

In such an approach we may develop the IDNH (ar any other interest like the
Inclusive Name Space) through the GA initiative. Then push propose a real
policy through motions to the NC or the BoD. Then get the support of the NC
without hurting them. Possibily to have some SIG to be "elevated" to the
rank of "Constituency", this quality representing the right to one or more
seat at the NC. To take a comparison:

- the CI are preparatory committies where competences can be used
- the SIG gather interests/concerns by types
- the GA is a Congress, self selected upon competence
- the NC is a Senate elected by the Constituencies

This do not require any change in the bylaws. Only some organization at
the GA level and a way of life with the NC that the VeriSign and the GA
Chair election shown not only possible, but productive and mutually
benficial. I feel that in that athmosphere the IDNH SIG would probably
get a real support from everyone to get three seats at the NC once it
has been established, shows that it may behave in a civilized manner
and has produced some position statements, help to the users etc....

At the end of the day and upon experience, we will see if the SIG
coordination ML, the GA and the NC may be reveiwed for a new
approach in the election mechanism. IMHO we might keep the NC
but have the GA to elect the Directors, without changing anything
in the bylaws (the NC confirming the GA vote as for the GA/Chair).

Mutual living trust.

Jesfey




On 23:56 12/04/01, Sotiris said:
>"babybows.com" wrote:
>
> > So, it comes down to this... instead of fairly representing two divergent
> > opinions regarding a possible future restructuring of the DNSO, you choose
> > to use the Review WG as a platform to promote only your own personal agenda
> > favoring the creation of an Individuals' Constituency.  This is not the
> > even-handedness that I expected from the Chair of this group.
>
>Actually, I do present the two divergent opinions.  If you recall, I included
>the following:
>
>"Further, there was a considerable amount of discussion around proposals 
>for the
>dissolution of the Constituency structure altogether.  In fact, a large 
>majority
>in the WGr appeared to favour reorganization along such lines.  Options
>discussed included the election of the Names Council directly from the body of
>the GA itself.  Although this idea was indeed popular, it represents a 
>long-term
>commitment and perspective, which may not be in order at this point, due 
>to the
>still nascent nature of the DNSO and ICANN in general, and the immediate need
>for representation of Individuals within the DNSO.  A restructuring of the 
>DNSO
>based on dissolution of the Constituency Structure would take a good deal of
>time and discussion, whereas the need to establish a voice for Individuals
>within the current DNSO is immediate.  However, this discussion should not be
>simply discarded, it should be revisited at a later point in time, pending a
>review of a DNSO that included an Individual's Constituency (among others). "
>
>Unfortunately, there was nothing substantive agreed upon by anyone with 
>regards
>to how such a solution/proposal for a dissolution and restructuring would be
>implemented.  Except of course, your take on Jefsey's proposal.  Now, I'm not
>saying the idea has no merits, but what I am saying is that very few 
>people took
>part in any commentary on said proposal, and it by no means represents any 
>kind
>of "consensus" recommendation from the WG, by any stretch of the imagination.
>You are welcome to submit it as a personal paper.  On the other hand, the
>proposal for an Individual's Constituency has enjoyed pretty much universal
>approval within the WG, even if the specifics have not been ironed out, the
>idea  itself has widespread support.  Irrespective of whether you like it or
>not.
>
>But please, if you have other ideas, do show me the "consensus" support 
>for the
>substantive comments which you proposed for the altenative to the Constituency
>Structure.
>
> > By stating that the *only* action you wish to see is the immediate
> > implementation of the IC, and by jumping to the conclusion that the Board
> > will most likely "ignore this" (which will then cause you to take recourse
> > in "sending the final WG proposal to a number of outspoken US Senators, and
> > the DoC, among others"), you are advancing a confrontational approach that
> > to my way of thinking is a disservice both to the DNSO and to ICANN.
>
>No Danny.  What I said was that I would be sending a copy to a "number of
>outspoken US Senators, and
>the DoC, among others" *concurrently* with the submission to the BoD.  Not 
>*if*
>they refuse...  In fact, *you* were the one who jumped to the conclusion that
>the BoD will refuse the proposal, I was merely responding to your hypothesis,
>and setting up a wider scope of considerations based on your appraisal.
>
> > Perhaps your recommendation would not be ignored if you chose to 
> justify why
> > it serves the interests of the Corporation to create a separate 
> Constituency
> > for individuals, other than merely stating that there is an "immediate need
> > for representation of Individuals within the DNSO".
>
>How's this? `To meet and satisfy the terms of the White paper and the MoU with
>respect to the ICW.'  I think that's definitely in ICANN's best interest, 
>and I
>am a Member of ICANN.  Who are you to tell me (and others) that we haven't got
>the best interests of ICANN in mind?  Do you have a monopoly or something?
>
> > As everyone is at
> > liberty to participate in the activities of the General Assembly, and
> > whereas every such participant under the bylaws is entitled to bring an
> > issue regarding domain name policy to the attention of the NC, one could
> > well argue that there is already a vehicle in place which allows for the
> > representation of individuals in the DNSO.
>
>But there are no seats on the NC, which means that there is no representation
>Danny.
>
> > You seek more than a "voice" for individuals; you seek to grant individuals
> > voting rights within the Names Council.
>
>Absolutely.  Obviously you have some kind of problem with this...
>
> > As many of these individuals have
> > been regarded as part of a community that thrives on "bashing" ICANN,
> > perhaps you could elaborate on what would now prompt the ICANN Board to 
> give
> > this new recommendation any more credence than any other prior 
> resolution to
> > create such a constituency.
>
>So, now Danny Younger speaks for the Board!  Thanks for that revelation, 
>Mr. GA
>Chair.  Just remember who voted for you... BTW, I certainly don't think the
>large majority of the WG members are ICANN "bashers".  ALL of us care 
>about the
>goings-on in ICANN, it's just that many of the Members are seriously
>disappointed with the management of the organization.  I suppose that in your
>weltanschaung (world view) there is no reason for an Official Opposition in
>governement...  Well Danny, sorry to break it to you, but not everyone 
>involved
>in ICANN thinks its roses in ICANN.
>
> > What factors have changed that would warrant a
> > reconsideration of a proposal already many times advanced?
>
>George W. Bush?
>
> > There is a need
> > for many groups to participate in the DNSO; by what virtue does this group
> > have primacy over all others?
>
>It represents the penultimate stakeholders in the ICW: the Individuals 
>(even you
>Danny, employee of Register.com).
>
> > A recommendation that does not address a
> > process by which *all* may come to have representation is not a
> > recommendation; it is a thinly veiled attempt at "capture" that must be
> > loudly denounced.
>
>"All"?  Like who exactly?  The Business Community?  the ccTLDs? the ISPs? 
>the IP
>lawyers?... but don't they already have representation?  And just who is 
>the IP
>Constituency representative of?  Isn't that a blatant attempt at capture?  I
>don't hear you denouncing them Danny.
>
> > You have made it clear that you will not offer "improvements to the 
> existing
> > operations", because "they can simply reject anything beyond that".  Is 
> this
> > how you choose to comply with a reasonable request from our Board?  This
> > single-minded type of fanaticism is precisely what is wrong with a
> > constituency approach that does no more than advance adversarial "position
> > papers" that do not lend themselves to the true building of consensus.  In
> > your mind, there is no room for compromise.
>
>Really?  I would say that the IC *is* a compromise, especially since the only
>other option presented so far is the dissolution of the current DNSO structure
>(something you support! or at least did... perhaps you'll say something
>different tomorrow.)
>
> > It's all or nothing, or you
> > will scream to any legislative oversight committee that will listen.
>
>That is the only avenue that has not been effectively explored to date.  After
>all, as you point out, every other similar recommendation has been rejected.
>Does this sound like a pattern?
>
> > Another matter... a straw poll question that purports to evaluate a
> > recommendation calling for the "dissolution" of the "DNSO" (which 
> absolutely
> > no one has recommended -- Why would we eliminate our own Supporting
> > Organization?) is the most maliciously bogus attempt I have ever seen to
> > skew the results of a poll within a working group environment.  If this is
> > an attempt to validate your "consensus", you have now totally lost all
> > credibility.
>
>I think the respondents have spoken quite clearly on this matter so 
>far.  As for
>my credibility, please let me worry about that myself.  (If I were you, I
>wouldn't be calling out someone else on *their* credibility.)  I wonder what
>would happen now, should the NC call for a re-election in the GA?  Don't you?
>
> > You have accused the ICANN Board of "apparent 'efforts' at reforming 
> along a
> > bottom-up mandate, without actually reforming."  You have asked, "Why 
> should
> > we willingly offer such legitimacy?"
>
>I did not accuse them of anything.  *Nothing* has been done, no advice has or
>has not been acted upon.  I merely stated a hypotheitcal situation.  My exact
>words (you did not quote them) were:
>
>"If we offer "improvements to the existing operations", they can simply reject
>anything beyond that, even though they explicitly requested more.  It 
>would be a
>way of
>legitimizing their apparent "efforts" at reforming along a bottom-up mandate,
>without
>actually reforming. Why should we willingly offer such legitimacy?"
>
>Further, are you aware of any operational improvements that were generally
>acceptable to the WG as whole, ones which could be construed generally as
>"consensus"?  because if you are, please let us know about them.  I found no
>such generally accepted proposals in the archives.
>
> > I, for one, do not view the Board as
> > an enemy.  They have recognized the dysfunctional state of the DNSO 
> (largely
> > as a result of the efforts of this Review WG), and have asked for
> > recommendations to restore the organization to a more functional state.
> > They are acting responsibly, and in the best interests of the Corporation.
>
>I don't view the Board as an enemy Danny, and I recognize their interest in
>reforming the DNSO.  But, until you show me the "consensus" proposals on
>operational improvements, I will not include your personal 
>opinions/comments in
>the WG Report.  I have chosen the broadest possible agreed upon proposals,
>nothing more and nothing less.
>
> > I have been a critic of ICANN, but I am nonetheless a supporter of 
> ICANN.  I
> > will willingly offer legitimacy to the ICANN process because I believe in
> > that process.  I regret that we are not of the same mind with respect to
> > this issue.
>
>I don't think you regret anything, including your obvious contradiction of
>yourself.  You do not have a monopoly on what's best for ICANN Danny.
>
> > This working group has given you the responsibility of drafting a final
> > report.  I honor that choice and respect your position as Chair.  It is
> > inevitable that in a group as large and diverse as ours there will be
> > disagreements.  If as Chair you have determined that consensus has been
> > reached, and if you are in a position to validate such claims, then my
> > minority opinion will not thwart your conclusion.  The report is yours to
> > write.  My opinions have been put forth.  We will await the final
> > recommendation of the Review Working Group.
>
>Your opinions have been noted.  Thank you for expressing them.
>
>Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>         Working Chair, WG Review
>
>--
>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