DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

RE: [ga] The BC Position on ICANN Evolution and Reform

You folks flag me.

You speak in non consequential terms.

You are beyond common understanding.

Good for you!

But I worry for you.

Good luck.


> The logic behind the Business Constituency's rather unique
> interpretation of "consensus" is actually even more bizarre if you look
> at it closely.
> The argument goes that generally members of the business constituency
> are too busy to want to be bothered with participating in a mailing
> list; consequently, the officers should have delegated power to state
> "draft positions", which will become "official positions" if there is
> no comment on the list. See the flaw? If businesses are too busy to
> read or participate in mailing lists.... then how can silence be
> interpreted as acceptance?
>>From a personal perspective, participating in this constituency on
>>behalf of Basic Fusion over the last month has been extremely
>>frustrating, not because I did not get my way (I fully accept that the
>>positions I took were often minority ones) but because of the strange
>>rules and frequent disregard for process that are used within the
>>constituency to stifle open debate. 
> One particular example of these strange rules is the Constituency's
> "Communication Guidelines" which can be seen at
> http://www.bizconst.org/bccomms.htm. Under these guidelines, the list
> moderator "... may composite replies on the same topic, change the
> subject line, remove trailing e-mails, or take any other action
> designed to make reading the e-mails clear and simple for members." A
> consequence of this is that it is often impossible to follow email
> trails (responses to a posted topic almost always have their headings
> changed), and that an individual posting can find itself tagged on to
> the end of three postings composited together, relegating a particular
> contribution in terms of importance.
> Although a BC-bashing session per se is clearly not useful on this
> mailing list, I do think that the manner in which the BC operates is
> pertinent to the current discussions on ICANN reform, since it
> highlights just how idealistic it is to think that a privatised
> policy-making function like ICANN can work efficiently and well. The
> reality is that the lack of accountability within ICANN has allowed a
> small cadre to effectively adopt the BC as a platform for ensuring
> their own viewpoint has disproportionate weight in the process. 
> Personally, I don't think that the ICANN reform group should be looking
> to create another policy function whether 100% private, 50/50
> private/public, 100% public or anything. Rather they should be looking
> at how to create a DNS governance structure that allows maximum input
> for the market into how the DNS develops, and minimal input from
> unaccountable individuals and organisations that arrogantly proclaim to
> represent the "will of the internet community".
> andy duff
> andy@luddo.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga-full@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga-full@dnso.org]On Behalf
> Of DannyYounger@cs.com
> Sent: 19 April 2002 06:29
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: [ga] The BC Position on ICANN Evolution and Reform
> The Business Constituency website now states:
> <<BC position on ICANN Evolution and Reform
> This paper, authored by Marilyn Cade, is now accepted as a BC
> Position.>>
> Needless to say, there are no changes in this document (even in spite
> of the  extensive list of questions prepared for Marilyn).  So, one
> might ask, how  exactly does the BC arrive at a "position"?  
> The BC website offers a succinct explanation:  <<The draft position
> will be  circulated for comment or posted on the web site. Members will
> be notified  that there will be a 14 days’ period for comment.  If no
> comments are  received the position will be deemed approved.>>
> The problem with this approach is that within the BC, members rarely,
> if  ever, participate on the mailing list (this is one of the reasons
> that the BC  refuses to publicly archive their list  -- they are
> embarrassed by the fact  that almost no one in their constituency ever
> has anything to say (with the  exception of Jefsey and Andy Duff), and
> they need to hide the fact that  almost all decisions and positions are
> exclusively made by only three people,  Phil, Marilyn and Grant,
> without the benefit of any other member input  whatsoever).
> So, in short... Marilyn quickly drafted something to throw up on the 
> website... as usual no one had anything to say... and that became the
> BC  "position".
> Spend some time and look at the document.  You will find that it is one
> of  the most vaguest non-substantive pieces of paper produced by this
> almost  useless constituency that can't be bothered to propose any
> specific solutions  to our current set of problems.  All the more
> reason why the BC should be  de-commissioned as a constituency in the
> restructured ICANN.  We don't need  both this group and the IP lobby
> (just one will suffice, and these two appear  to be no more than mirror
> images of each other anyway).
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> --
> 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

Reality in a Digital World

The information transmitted in this e-mail is intended for the person or
entity to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential and/or
privileged material.  Any review, retransmission or other use of, or
taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited.  If
you receive this e-mail in error, please contact the sender and delete
this material from any system.  Thank you!

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 >>>