RE: [ga] More thoughts on a Registrants Constituency
At 14:24 08/03/2007, Roberto Gaetano wrote: I have a problem with the fact that most of the time when an organizational issue is put on the table, the conversation ends up in counting votes. Am I the only one who thinks that with this obsession on voting power we miss opportunities to make our voice heard? Correct. Remember the GA: it took its first year to vote on the way it will vote. This is worrying because a vote only shows that a proposed idea has oponents and therefore is of no use at this stage. ITEF rough consensus hides that. But it is no more credible in a diversified multi-Internet culture. We have a good exemple of this worldwide discredit wih the IDNA issue. We worked on this at the WG-Review. And I think we came back with good responses, even if we missed the practical tools we needed, may be it could have been a Wiki. Credibility IMHO is now with multi-consensus. This means a text documenting consensually each different position, the commonly negociated areas of interoperability/interinteligibility, and the solution of their possible lacks. This is easier IMHO in a constituency or through a cross-constituency polylogue (that could be the GA: Members/reps of each constituencies since the council is opaque). The problem is not so much organizational but "power"/ego consideration grip using competence in petty ICANN oddities and private ties as an alibi). In any case it should result into formal official documents. jfc
|