Re: Counterpoint (3)

[Pete Farmer <pfarmer@strategies-u.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Farmer 
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 1998 12:43 PM
To: Domain (E-mail)
Cc: 'Patrick Greenwell'
Subject: RE: do we need a wrap-up IFWP meeting?


On Wednesday, August 05, 1998 at 12:00 PM, Patrick Greenwell
[mailto:patrick@NAMESECURE.COM] wrote:
>The fundemental problem is that there are far too many sticking points
>Michael.

There are many sticking points -- you're right.  But I think that's why
Michael's proposal has merit.  It provides a mechanism for focused
discussion (by another word, negotiation) on concrete proposals that
deal with each point in turn.

In my own experience, negotiations move much smoother and quicker
towards a mutually-satisfying end when people work with something
written in black and white, rather than fuzzy, imprecise views and
concepts.  This is true both with bilateral and multilateral
negotiations (i.e. situations where there were multiple views on any
given point).

>One of the mandates of this entire proceeding is that it be
>representitive. Any model that is not does not pass go and does not
>collect $200.

The mandate is to deliver an *end product* that is representative (which
is a little bit different from what you said).  I view Michael's process
as one that includes ample opportunity for free discussion among all
parties, and hence passes any tests on process.  The end product will
still have to pass the "representative" test.

Perhaps other processes might be considered "more representative."  But
if they're less likely to deliver an end product by the end of
September, who cares?

The pragmatist doesn't worry whether a strawman proposal came from Jon
Postel, Jay Fenello, Jesse Helms, Ted Kaczynski, or a thousand monkeys
typing at random.  The pragmatist looks at it and uses it inasmuch as it
is valuable.  He puts tick marks on the sections that are OK.  He throws
up over sections he hates AND THEN comes up with proposed substitute
language.  Eventually, in most cases, the group converges on something
that all can stomach without throwing up.  That's compromise.

Patrick, what do you like and what do you hate in Postel's proposals?

Pete
______________________________________________________________________
Peter J. Farmer                    mailto:pfarmer@strategies-u.com
Strategies Unlimited               Voice: +1 650 941 3438
201 San Antonio Circle, Suite 205  Fax:   +1 650 941 5120
Mountain View, CA 94040            WWW:   http://www.strategies-u.com