[Internal-cg] Early draft for a charter
Milton L Mueller
mueller at syr.edu
Tue Jul 15 18:30:13 UTC 2014
> -----Original Message-----
> The best the CG can do is to produce a unified proposal from the parts that
> *do* have consensus in their respective communities and have those
> communities come to consensus about that unified proposal.
Thanks, Daniel. That is not much different from what I am proposing. But I am calling attention to a fact that is often neglected or deliberately ignored in these circles, which is that the presence or absence of "consensus" is not self-evident, that consensus can be (and often is) claimed when it does not exist, and thus there is a need for independent assessment of the level of support enjoyed by a proposal. I am also insisting on the fact - yes, it is a fact - that no proposal coming out of the DNS world will enjoy total, true _consensus_ if we use the term in the proper, Quaker sense, meaning full accord, no objections, unanimity. Some of them may, however, enjoy significant, broad support, broad enough to be viable. So the CG will have to make judgments about what passes the bar and what doesn't.
> It may be that the names communities do not realise what is at stake for
> them and that it is in their interest to agree on *something* within a
> reasonable time. If they cannot manage this by themselves then then the CG
> cannot make this happen magically and should not try.
And you recognize, of course, that such an approach gives veto power to any group that does not want the transition to happen?
There is a long history of obstructionism by small but determined and powerful interests in the names world. How does this fit in with your concept of consensus? I wonder why you would consider, say, the GNSO or an ICANN-composed CCWG as a legitimate modifier or developer of a proposal but would not consider a CG whose members were appointed as representatives by the exact same group. Alissa's idea of a subgroup of DNS-related people on the CG might make sense here.
> Rather the CG should make a proposal that leaves out the IANA functions
> concerning names and disband.
This I regard as irresponsible. An IANA transition that does not include a viable plan for DNS is not an IANA transition. Full stop. The protocol parameter registries are not controversial. The number registry issues could be controversial, but currently are not. If we cannot resolve DNS controversies, we have resolved nothing, accomplished nothing. So if you are happy with the status quo, keep singing this tune.
> If the names communities should find that they need help coming to
> consensus it is up to them to find that help somewhere, possibly in
> arbitration or some other process help. That is up to them. But if they come
> to us we should say 'No'.
Did I miss the argument as to why? I want an instrumental argument, a practical argument, not a fable or an anecdote
> Summary: Daniel fully agrees with Alissa and substantially disagrees
> with Milton.
What you agree or disagree with, I hope, are specific arguments or positions, not people. Personalization of disagreements about the charter and mission is counterproductive. For one thing, there are about a dozen, distinct statements or arguments in my last post, some of which are not all that contestable. Are you saying you disagree with all of them simply because they come from me? Lets try to do better.
More information about the Internal-cg