DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

[ga] Re: Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF


While your rhetoric and misplaced theories may excite some, my actual
statements are far less impressive.

"The work of this task force thsus far has focused on points number 1
5 in the Final Terms of Reference document...

At this point I would like to propose that we turn our attention to point #6
"...develop recommendations to the Names Council for guidance to the ICANN
Board of Directors concerning any amendment of existing contractual
agreements, where such changes are needed to correct any identified clauses
which require policy guidance or clarification , should the Names Council
determine that consensus support for said recommendations exists, as
specified in section 2.d of the ICANN bylaws." pending the receipt of the
feedback required by point #4.

I firmly believe that there will be no surprises from the registrants that
would derail any efforts put towards achieving the goals of point #6. At
worst, I expect that we may have to undertake minor modifcations pending
receipt of this feedback, but that this will largely be mitigated by the
current user groups that are participating in this task force. The needs of
the various user stakeholders are largely complementary as it relates to
transfers. Of course, the Registrar Constituency cannot pretend to speak on
behalf of this community, we do have excellent exposure to their interests,
needs and challenges through our economic dealings with them. In the year
that I have been working this issue, I have not seen any dissonance with the
goals of Registrars vis-a-vis Registrants."[1]

Further, while you state elsewhere that "we don't get it", the registrar
constituency *has* achieved constituency on the best practices document that
I have tabled. The very fact that this document was accepted by all but two
registrar members (one abstaining, one against - the one that abstained
helped me draft this document) is perfect evidence of this consensus. If
this isn't a reasonable demonstration of consensus then perhaps I don't get

To the rest, I can only offer that perhaps you gain a better understanding
of the differences between work planning, tabled propositions and final
recommendations. Each of which are very specifically and appropriately dealt
with in my proposal to the TF.


[1] For those of you that wish to inform yourselves, the complete post can
be found at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00152.html

----- Original Message -----
From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Cc: <ross@tucows.com>; <mcade@att.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 9:54 PM
Subject: Abusing consensus in the Transfers TF

> According to the archives of the Business Constituency, Ross Rader made a
> presentation to the BC on the issue of Transfers in Marina del Rey and
> BC expressed support for the proposed solution to this problem and
> its representative to the Names Council transfers TF (Marilyn Cade) to
> advocate this view."
> http://www.bizconst.org/archive/BCLA11-01.doc
> That Marilyn pretends to be a neutral Chair on this TF while being
> to advocate a particular solution comes as no surprise to anyone, nor were
> surprised when Ross was the first to nominate Marilyn as Chair for the
> Transfers TF.  But now Ross, who tells us in the Heathrow Declaration that
> "Consensus-based decision-making may not always be appropriate where
> commercial interests conflict," declares that "Unless there is an
> proposal that provides the depth, roots in consensus and clarity that the
> Registrar position has, it is our preference that we move to closure and
> recommendation back to the NC before April 30th, 2002."
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-transfer/Arc00/msg00152.html
> According to Ross, we can quickly move past the need to hear from
> because, "In the year that I have been working this issue, I have not seen
> any dissonance with the goals of Registrars vis-a-vis Registrants."
> What we are looking at is an attempt to railroad process, and to impose a
> solution that these two parties have mutually pre-agreed upon.
> There has been no respect for the consensus process within this TF since
> day that it was formed.  The views of potentially impacted parties have
> been solicited, registrants are not represented in the TF, and absolutely
> outreach has been conducted.  Discussion among list members has been at a
> bare minimum, and Ross's portrayal of the September Inter-Registrar
> Document as a product of consensus among the registrars is a contention
> subject to dispute.
> So that there be no ambiguity, I call on the Chair of this TF to clearly
> state in writing for the benefit of her TF membership exactly what the
> requirements are for consensus within the ICANN process, and to detail
> exactly how her TF will proceed to honor such requirements.

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 >>>