DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] RE: [ALSC-Forum] ICANN: already two consensuses: still three moreneeded

You are asking for an agreement to agree. Any attorney will tell you that's
not possible. If you want an agreement, you have to work out the details,
otherwise nobody knows what they're agreeing. Sorry.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-forum@www.atlargestudy.org
[mailto:owner-forum@www.atlargestudy.org]On Behalf Of Micheal Sherrill
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 6:48 PM
To: forum@atlargestudy.org; Jefsey Morfin
Cc: lynn@icann.org; k@widgital.com; Karl Auerbach
apisan@servidor.unam.mx; Amadeu@nominalia.com; lyman@nxthop.com;
jcohen@shapirocohen.com; phil.davidson@bt.com; f.fitzsimmons@att.net;
ken.fockler@sympatico.ca; mkatoh@mkatoh.net; hans@icann.org;
shkyong@kgsm.kaist.ac.kr; andy@ccc.de; junsec@wide.ad.jp;
quaynor@ghana.com; helmut.schink@icn.siemens.de; linda@icann.org; esther
Dyson; Mike Roberts; Peter de Blanc; david@new.net; Andy Duff;
pbernhard@cube.de; vint cerf; Bruce Young; David Farber; Charles Shaban;
Subject: Re: [ALSC-Forum] ICANN: already two consensuses: still three
more needed

This is a consensus with which I would abide.  We have to start somewhere as
long as it does not parallel the abyss that was dug by ICANN.  We must learn
from ICANN (at least what not to do) and go forward.  Start here, start now.
And pay maximum attention to all those we appoint as our representatives.
Leave nothing to chance.  Without this resolve we have only ourselves to
blame if we let it happen again.


Micheal Sherrill

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>
Date:  Thu, 21 Mar 2002 18:46:57 +0100

Vint Cerf: Jefsey, Talleyrand was right - when things are complex and
tense, it is the time to
move carefully.

Alejandro: Jefsey, let me enter this fray. I take what seems to me your
main point serious, well-thought position papers that address the issues
and make concrete, workable, integral proposals. Try to avoid half-baked
ideas and generalized lamentations about the present situation or about the
past. That is what we need. Concentrate the efforts on them.

Charles Shaban: Dear Jefsey and IPC members, I have to disagree with you, I
think ICANN mission is more than the IANA, IANA functions is only parts of
the ICANN functions. But you are correct that ICANN should define its
functions from the beginning and stick to them. (Charles: I agree with you.
It depends on what you name ICANN).

David Harnand: Alejandro and others, We at New.net absolutely agree with
you that what is needed are "concrete, workable, integral proposals" to
solve the current problems with DNS governance.

Bruce Young: Jefsey, If I assume your intent here is to work on separate
point papers outside of
the At Large proper, I have no problem with that. In fact I for one welcome
as many parallel efforts as possible, as long as they don't overshadow or
attempt to replace our At Large efforts.

Dear all,
from this I see that we need five consensuses and that we already have got
two of them. I suggest we proceed in order.

1. first consensus (thanks to Lynn): we all agree now that the present
ICANN cannot fulfill its missions, whatever they are.

2. second consensus: we all agree that the propositions of Lynn are not
workable as such and that we need to work on them.

3. third (needed) consensus: we need to agree on our target. I propose it
is "a consensus on the ICANN missions and organization". With the two
consensuses above anything below that (even a BoD vote on a BoD committee
proposition) will not be accepted in real life. The key is "consensus" not
the proposition in itself.

4. forth (needed) consensus: we need to agree on a consensus among who and
how. We need a lasting consensus, so we need *every* positions to be
associated to it.

It has to be an Internet Community Pact.

This is why I suggest three things.

- a clean sheet, step by step approach. We know everyone's agenda and
feuds, no need to repeat. What we want is to find solutions which satisfy
*every* of us. If we fail, there will be no ICANN anymore as "we are the
ICANN" as Mike Roberts truly said.

- to call on the largest basis of serious and professional people. In
protecting ourselves against any capture and disrupters. I therefore called
on Vint as a Chair and to all the currently identified stakeholders through
any existing gouvernance oriented list. It is NOT to select lists/positions
but to be sure people have shown they are concerned and who they physically
are. At lowest cost.

- to use a working method which can lead to a consensus even if only one
single person has initially hat the final proposition. This method consists
in a site where every positions can be linked and polled upon. This is the
only way to build, confront and reduce into a single consensus serious yet
opposed propositions. Polls are to help (as are the debates) but are *no*
votes. What is important is the change in the polls. These changes will
help progressive, step by step debates and agreements. The real "votes" are
by the position writers: in writing eventually a common document. There
must be no loser. This has to be a win/win situation for all.

5. ultimate (needed) consensus: what are the ICANN mission, organization
and operations. And how to implement it as a consensus.

We therefore need three consensus more. A consensus is to discover what we
*already* agree upon, should some conditions be met. Once the consensus is
uncovered, the decisions are about how to meet that conditions. So please
let proceed step by step.

1. consensus number three (now): do we agree that to reach a stable
situation we need a global consensus involving  all the stake holding
positions? That it has to be worked out in a consensual manner? that such a
consensus will be a part of the solution?

2. consensus number four (after three is uncovered): do we agree that we
want to work in an orderly and professional manner? step by step from clean
sheet? with the largest number at hand of genuinely concerned even if
opposing people, while preventing any risk of capture and of disruption?
using a method permitting the clear presentation of the different positions
and their reduction into a common agreement? that such an agreement will
most probably depend on actions we will have to discuss, to agree upon and
to undertake? and not to be at anyone's expense?

3. Ultimate consensus (not to be discussed now): I do believe it does exist
(otherwise why to give it a try). I could document my vision, as others
could also do with their own today vision. We "just" have to adjust our

I think it can bring a far greater stability and security for all of us, at
a drastically reduced cost, with a much broader scope of concerns than
"mission creep" and a much larger involvement of absentees, in fostering
innovation and in respecting cultures and national interests while
permitting large and small operators and entrepreneurs to develop. It will
also permit very large steps ahead in term of network architecture, social
acceptance and economy development.

This is when we are in the dark that we have to hope for the light. IMO, in
this case it is not to hope, just to work it out. But since we only are
human, it may be complex!


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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>