[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Lead-in to the Ottawa wrapup meeting (II)
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Lead-in to the Ottawa wrapup meeting (II)
- From: Michael Dillon <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 19:38:28 -0700 (PDT)
- Organization: Memra Communications Inc.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 17:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Dillon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: do we need a wrap-up IFWP meeting?
On Tue, 4 Aug 1998, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> > > > The current sticking points probably involve
> > > > only a few key matters like classes and powers of members, composition
> > > > and powers of the Councils, Board diversity, and selection of initial
> > > > board.
> > I have found it useful to resolve this sort of impasse by having one
> > person submit the strawman proposal and then having another person from
> > the opposing camp read this strawman and submit alternate proposals that
> > deal with the sticking point.
> This presupposes that there are merely two camps,
No it doesn't. This just creates the basis for further work. The person
writing the alternate proposal would be charged with representing any
consensus points that disagree with Postel's draft as well as representing
any points on which there was not consensus.
But then there would be opportunity for public discussion and comment on
the proposals as well as formal submissions by any interested party of
draft proposals. Those submissions can either choose certain points and
present an alternate alternate viewpoint or they can attempt a synthesis
of the two drafts with whatever changes the person feels are needed.
The point is not to have two drafts that fairly represents some imaginary
camps but to have a structured process for submitting draft proposals that
is evolutionary. Postel starts with a proposal which presumably is an
evolution of his existing proposal and incorporates at least some of the
IFWP consensus points. Someone who is clearly not in Postel's camp or the
MOUvement then counters with a proposal that attempts to repair what they
perceive as deficiencies in Postel's proposal. They could include
consensus points that Postel left out and they could make attempts at
finding a consensus on points that the IFWP process failed to reach
Then during the public discussion and analysis period, anyone can review
and critique both drafts, pointing out where IFWP consensus points were
missed or were misconstrued. During this process anyone else can
consolidate some of this discussion in an attempt to repair all or part of
the proposed drafts.
This is evolutionary because the wrap-up meeting will be presented with at
least two draft proposals which are guaranteed to be tugging at least
partially in different directions plus a set of other proposals which bear
some relationship to the base proposals and can therefore be discussed
intelligently by them. I would expect that this meeting would start by
discarding any proposals out of left field since their intent is to reach
consensus where possible and reach compromise where there is no consensus.
In order for others to influence the people at that meeting they must make
comments which are closely tied to other people's comments, either
building on someone else's proposal or giving reasons why a specific
proposal whould be discarded and replaced with a better way. To get that
kind of evolutionary base material in their hands there needs to be an
orderly and *FOCUSED* online opublic discussion out of which people create
Focus is the key word here. The Postel proposal and the counterpoint
proposal are not intended to be more legitimate than other proposals. They
are intended to be the focal point of the discussion, to draw the
discussion inwards towards a common goal of consensus and compromise. Part
of this focal function is that the two proposals will DRAW FIRE from
others who submit their own alternate drafts. Because these alternate
drafts were written in the context of the two focal proposals, they can
refer to those proposals and give the people at the meeting a handle on
how the proposals are related to one another.
This is an evolutionary process and without such a process what will
happen is that a bunch of people will walk into some rooms in Ottawa and
hammer out an accord that will be revolutionary. This means that it will
be a surprise to many people and after getting over being startled by the
compromise, we will have a public uproar. To avoid the uproar, we need
and evolutionary process. That way no one is surprised by the final
accord, only disappointed by a few apsects of it.
As before, if anyone wishes to forward this message to other discussion
forums, please feel free to do so.
Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting
Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: email@example.com
Check the website for my Internet World articles - http://www.memra.com