Re: [ALSC-Forum] To vote or not to vote

[Esther Dyson]

This sounds good, but consider the case when the committee members who vote 
are the people who (1) need to agree by contract to implement the policy 
and (2) will be in charge of carrying it out. Therefore it *does* matter 
how they vote....   (even beyond the consensus requirements in ICANN's 
bylaws).

Whether there might be a better way of selecting/designing the Names 
Council (or any other committee for that matter) is another question - but 
not one faced directly by the ALSC.

Esther

At 08:30 PM 8/21/2001, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

>If I were sitting on the Board of some Corporation and it became obvious that
>there was an issue that warranted the attention of the Board, I would want:
>
>1.  to be provided with a written report and supporting materials that fully
>discussed the issue
>2.  to know what policy options had so far been considered
>3.  to know precisely who might be negatively affected by any new Board policy
>4.  to know to what degree those affected by any proposed policy option are
>in agreement or disagreement regarding the action that might be taken
>5.  to be able to confirm that the views of those that might be impacted by a
>Board decision were thoroughly represented in the documents submitted
>6.  to know how passionate the arguments were on each side of the issue
>
>Would I really care that 15 out of 21 committee members voted in favor of a
>certain policy option?  No.
>
>As I intend to formulate my own opinion, it wouldn't matter if 21 out of 21
>came to a certain conclusion or if a given approach was favored by only 5 out
>of 21.  All I need to make a responsible informed decision is a properly
>drafted thoroughly researched unbiased report, and that is what I expect.
>
>Introducing the element of a subordinate body's vote, 5-out-of-21 or
>17-out-of-21, adds an unnecessary dimension to the process that needlessly
>complicates matters.   Frankly, I don't care if there is or isn't consensus
>because I'm going to do what is best for the Corporation anyway.
>
>Framing this analogy in terms that are familiar to the ICANN community, this
>would mean revising our process to eliminate those provisions that call for a
>"recommendation, adopted by at least a two-thirds vote of the council of the
>ICANN Supporting Organization to which the matter is delegated, that the
>specification or policy should be established."
>
>The only consensus that should matter is the consensus that the report fairly
>represents everyone's views.  Let the Board then decide upon the merits of
>the arguments therein.
>
>I am of the opinion that the DNSO has been mortally wounded by the
>adversarial constituency dynamic, and I see no need for it.  Eliminate the
>voting process of the Council, and you may go a long way toward eliminating
>the problems of the DNSO.



Esther Dyson			Always make new mistakes!
chairman, EDventure Holdings
writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
edyson@edventure.com
1 (212) 924-8800    --   fax  1 (212) 924-0240
104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
New York, NY 10011 USA
http://www.edventure.com

High-Tech Forum in Europe: 7 to 9 November, Berlin
PC FORUM: 24 to 27 March 2002, Scottsdale (Phoenix), Arizona