Lead-in to the Ottawa wrapup meeting (III)

[Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 17:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com>
To: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET
Subject: Re: do we need a wrap-up IFWP meeting?

On Tue, 4 Aug 1998, Patrick Greenwell wrote:

> > > > 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. 
> 
> By your very wording it does: "... having another person from the opposing
> camp ..." There are many, many "camps" in these discussions. 

Well then, fix my wording. How about this...

   ... and then having another person, not affiliated with the IANA or the
   MOUvement, read this strawman and submit alternate proposals that deal
   with the sticking point. 

The point is to make sure that the second base proposal has an element of
counterpoint to it so that we create some creative tension that other
drafts can play off of.

> That is far too large a job for any one person, and I would not trust my
> views to be adequately represented.

That's why you should write one of the other draft proposals that get
submitted formally to the people at the wrapup meeting.

> What you are proposing is in no way a representitve model.

Exactly! It is not intended to be representative, it is intended to evolve
towards consensus and compromise.

  Joe: Let's do it this way.

  Fred: No, let;s do it this way.

  Others: Hey you guys, why down't we do this like Joe says and then do
          this like Fred says and we could even do this other thing too.

  [Arguments ensue and the parents decide to call a meeting to look at
   everyone's proposal and work out a compromise] 

If we don't organize something like this *BEFORE* the wrapup meeting then
the folks at the wrapup meeting will basically have a set of proposals and
the outcome of the IFWP meetings to work with and not much else. The draft
proposals in front of them will be all over the map with as few common
threads as the original Green Paper proposals.

If we do as I suggest, then virtually every proposal will have some common
elements in them either agreeing with one or more points in the two base
drafts or disagreeing with one or more points in the two base drafts. This
gives the wrap-up folks a BIG headstart on their discussions. The flipside
is that they will likely dismiss out of hand any proposals that don't tie
in somehow or which don't refer to the common terminology of the base
drafts. This is good and it does not prevent you from proposing anything
at all, in fact it increases the chance that your good ideas will be
accepted by the wrapup folks because they will fit into the framework of
the discussion because the very existence of the base drafts will force
you to mention where you agree and disagree with them.

> Michael, I don't know if you are aware, but in at least one of the
> meetings in Geneva, it was agreed that the IANA by-laws *not* be taken as
> the basis for discussion in that group,

So what. I don't care what the IFWP meetings did because they served a
different purpose than the wrapup. When you are beginning a discussion and
trying to move towards consensus then you should *NOT* work from draft
documents but should discuss the issues fully and look for consensus. But
after that work is done, someone has to attempt to tie together the
consensus points into a coherent proposal and it is best if all the people
who attempt to do this are speaking the same language instead of working
alone in dark corners somewhere.

> Not that they
> don't contain some good ideas, however there is no guarantee for any
> special status for the by-laws as presented by the current IANA over that
> of anyone else. 

They already have special status. This whole series of meetings is about
creating a formal and an extended replacement for IANA. You can't change
the past. IANA is special in this discussion and the meetings would *NOT*
have taken place if there hadn't been substantial disagreement with IANA's
future plans. Therefore, it makes sense to give IANA the first crack at
incorporating the IFWP consensus and it makes sense to give someone
unaffiliated with IANA the second crack at incorporating the consensus. At
that point we can discuss it until our faces turn blue and anyone who
wishes can try to incorporate the IFWP consensus into a workable
organization. But nobody, not you, not Postel, and not me, will get their
own way. Some of us will see our suggestions incorporated into the final
result but only if we can explain our ideas *IN* *CONTEXT*. The process
that I have described gives the most people the maximum opportunity to
explain their ideas in context and therefore have a chance that the wrapup
people will get it and will incorporate those ideas.

> The reason we are involved in this process is to create a proposal as a
> group, not to have the current IANA create one for us. 

That's the whole point of my suggestion here! And that's the whole point
of having a wrapup meeting that is charged with creating an organization
based on the IFWP consensus where possible and compromise when consensus
is not possible. The more coherent suggestions they get, the easier their
job will be.

As before if anyone wishes to forward this to another discussion forume
then feel free to do so.

--
Michael Dillon                 -               Internet & ISP Consulting
Memra Communications Inc.      -               E-mail: michael@memra.com
Check the website for my Internet World articles -  http://www.memra.com