<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] More thoughts on a Registrants Constituency
- To: JFC Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Danny Younger'" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Karl Auerbach'" <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [ga] More thoughts on a Registrants Constituency
- From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 15:08:31 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=w5pCIklJEbqr/KTk0oQ34nrMDRA7ciY5oG9cFj+KglBSwlHusgItMKw3NalynpkD0JoJckGmWs4TChGq3NASbjXP9McQ/Qp3viOkNRKtb7cWrnLznfFHvIFL/S8vwx9vISlkuP7/s9r/nfBxQDuMm6XS0l3Kb5EGQoI2xZKKOTM=;
- In-reply-to: <20070308154540.3B2E5153BC@smtp7-g19.free.fr>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I firmly agree with the concept of acknowledging the competing consensus' and letting the matter rest on the qualitative weight which each persuasion sets forth.
Eric
JFC Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
---------------------------------
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|