[Comment-Dnso] Consensus?

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

On the ifwp list Joe Sims wrote, (emphasis mine)

>so I take it all the hullabaloo on this is a waste of time, and the
only
>acceptable approach to you would be to make it so the "large
scale
>commercial interests" were the ones with "token"
representation?  The fact
>is that there are many interests with legitimate roles here, and
whether
>you agree or not, that includes all the groups that the Board asked
to form
>constituencies, including non-commercial interests.  The issue
of an
>individual constituency in the DNSO is a legitimate one, but it
raises
>questions about the relationship of that to the At Large
membership, and
>the appropriateness of changing what was essentially the consensus of
the
>vast majority of the community on the composition of the DNSO. 
The fact
>that there are some -- it seems obvious a realtively small number --
in the
>community that would do it a different way should certainly not be
allowed
>to override the consensus structure, at least without
allowing the
>community to comment.  There was no opportunity for notice and
comment
>before the Berlin meeting, but I am sure there will be before the
Santiago
>meeting.  If this is too slow for you, I'm sorry, but since you
were one of
>the major proponents of the extensive notice and comment procedures
we
>have, you will have to take the credit or blame, such as it is, for
the
>speed at which ICANN can operate.
>
First of all, thank you Joe, for at last joining this debate on
substance.

I must take issue with this notion of consensus, especially of the
"vast majority".
In Singapore, when Chris Hall (Canada ccTLD)asked the assembled
"DNSO meeting" if anyone wanted to voice objections to the idea
of a constituency for Individual Domain name owners, nobody spoke
up.
You were there  Joe, and so was Esther.  Tell me that that
isn't true. If I hadn't gone there, others could testify to that
consensus.
Was it you who advised the Board to act otherwise?

Extraordinary. These are the people who could afford or were paid to come
to the physical meeting and who had their own interests to defend.
In Berlin it was the same. Only about a third of the assembly of people
who went there (certainly not to plead for the Individual DN owners)
raised their hands against such a DNSO constituency, when Jim Higgins
called for a show of hands. (Esther's estimate)
When I looked, these were largely the Intellectual property lawyers and
some (certainly not all) CORE members.

You are (or the interim Board is) not taking into account the community
that has participated in these debates on line. Comments  have been
sent to comments@icann.org and comment-dnso@icann.org. How many
individual Domain name owners know of this process?

You have to build  a democracy in order to measure consensus. 
"Trust us" just doesn't cut it.

P.S. When you have the time, pray tell  what a "consensus
structure" is.

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  , bootstrap  of

the Cyberspace Association,

the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners

http://www.idno.org