Re: [ALSC-Forum] Logical Analysis etc

[Mike Roberts]

Mr. Waters -

This is an exceedingly inaccurate view of the events of the summer of 
1998.  As I attempted to make clear in several recent posts to this 
list, the Postel proposal which ultimately resulted in the formation 
of ICANN, and ICANN's recognition by the Department of Commerce, had 
no direct connection to any of the IFWP events and discussions, 
although there were numerous indirect benefits. No one on the ICANN 
Initial Board of Directors was a participant in IFWP other than 
myself.  To my knowledge, there is no reference in any ICANN Board 
decision to an assertion about what IFWP did or did not do, or a 
position its participants did or did not hold.

ICANN makes policy decisions by resolution of the Board.  If you 
review the decision record since 1998, all of which is available at 
<http://www.icann.org/minutes/notes-minutes.htm>, you will find the 
documentation of every decision, including findings of consensus 
within the community, in that record.

There is obviously room for disagreement with decisions of the Board, 
since by definition consensus is not unanimity and the ICANN 
community is pluralistic, to say the least.   But if you wish to 
contribute to useful dialog about the future of At Large, why don't 
you state your case on its intrinsic merits rather than trying to 
build a foundation based on an historical record which does not exist 
in the form you present here.

- Mike Roberts




At 9:46 -0500 9/25/01, Stephen Waters wrote:
>If IFWP cannot be taken as consensus en masse, it calls into question
>such documents as the Unique Root Draft which logically depend on the
>IFWP and also repeatedly mention consensus-based decisions. In this
>case, ICANN needs must line out clearly exactly which parts of IFWP are
>consensus-based and which are not.
>
>Furthermore, it is clear that Mr.Lynn, the author of URD and President,
>feels that consensus can override the IFWP.
>
>And if community consensus is so vitally important to the process that
>it can even override the original goals set out for ICANN in IFWP, is it
>not the height of disingenuity to disenfranchise the At-Large votership
>and Board representation before the community has even been implemented
>as defined in IFWP?
>
>To the point:
>
>1) IFWP defines the Board representation to balance interests of the
>community. It's pretty clear that this representation is intended to
>balance interests along the traditional producer/consumer schizm and NOT
>along technical boundaries (Names, Numbers, Protocols, and Users).
>
>Thus, since IFWP defines what the community consists in and its
>representation, there can be no consensus until that community is
>realized. Representation is a necessary condition of community because
>it is impossible to know what the community consensus is until all
>parties can contribute.
>
>A1. Community -> Consensus.
>A2. Community <--> (Producers & Consumers).
>A3. Producers <-> (9 Members & Names & Numbers & Protocols).
>A4. Consumers <-> (9 Members & Users).
>
>2) ICANN then implements the producer part of the community... This is a
>necessary but not sufficient condition for the community to exist.
>
>[A3] is implemented.
>
>3) ICANN then implements part of the consumer part of the community for
>the purposes of "experimentation." This is a necessary but not
>sufficient condition for community to exist.
>
>[A4] is not implemented.
>
>4) Thus, since ICANN has not implemented the community it is impossible
>for them to claim that there is community consensus in any argument
>whatsoever. Any claim that the experiment in [3] is an implementation of
>[A4] is simply false.
>
>Thus, [A2] remains unimplemented and thus [A1] cannot follow.
>
>Thus, all claims to consensus or potential consensus in the ALSC Draft
>are false.
>
>If ICANN goes ahead and implements [A4] and then the community consensus
>is to reformulate the community along the Provider, Developer, and User
>distinction, that would be logically possible and acceptable.
>
>Until [A4] is implemented, however, I will continuously regard claims to
>consensus, actual or possible, as outright lies.
>
>Cheers,
>-s
>
>Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Untitled 125 (????/----) (0000E55C)


--