[ncdnhc-discuss] Re: [bwg+] Re: NCDNHC Response to Threatened Cutoff of NC Voting Rights

[Einar Stefferud]

Not having NCDNHC votes included has no importance since there is no 
such thing as consensus in any ICANN action.

The entire house of cards is just a farce...\Stef


At 08:05 -0800 08/02/02, Bret Fausett wrote:
>Milton,
>
>The other odd aspect of fees is its interrelationship with ICANN's mission
>as a consensus-based organization. Here's the problem. Assume a close vote
>on a new consensus policy on something like transfers, which will bind the
>registrars. Assume that the NCDNHC votes are not counted because they didn't
>pay their fees, but the 3 constituency votes would have gone against
>whatever it is that passed. Now you've generated a "consensus" policy from
>the DNSO that really isn't a consensus at all. It could likely be challenged
>on that ground by the party you were seeking to bind. Your constituency's
>status as a stakeholder doesn't change because you can or can't pay; you're
>still affected by the policies and outcomes.
>
>This idea is supported by the ICANN Bylaws. Article VI-B determines what
>constitutes consensus within the DNSO and the NC, and who can be a member of
>the NC. Nothing in that article requires that you be a paying member of the
>NC in order to register a vote. If the other NC members want to implement a
>pay-to-play system, then I suspect it will require the ICANN Board to
>approve changes to Article VI-B of the Bylaws.
>
>         Bret