Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement and procedures
- To: BC gnso <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] BC statement and procedures
- From: George Kirikos <icann@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:43:13 -0400
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Rick Anderson<RAnderson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think the BC has more important things to do than descend into a prolonged
> argument over this, but it is time that the councillors understood that when
> there is a lack of consensus within the constituency it is not OK to simply
> proceed as if this were not true.
Correct. It was my recollection from the BC meeting (someone correct
me if I am wrong, or send an MP3 recording if one was made) in Sydney
that no BC position was going to be taken because the constituency was
obviously divided, but instead the members would submit statements
individually. That's why I was surprised when suddenly Philip posted
an initial statement at:
which was one sided, and did not reflect the deep divisions that
existed, instead calling it a "huge step forward."
I believe Ayesha and I, acting reasonably, could have combined our two
statements in a manner that would have captured the consensus of the
entire constituency and was properly worded. This could have happened
by the comments deadline of early July.
There's a certain irony that we're having a debate about "due process"
of our constituency position when those same "due process" issues came
up in the IRT report. The folks who would trample over the rights of
domain registrants are the same folks who would trample over the
rights of their fellow BC members who wish to engage in dialogue and
solid policymaking work.
> If this were the first time something like this had occurred, it would hardly
> have rated comment. Let's hope it's the last and that we do not on the
> future have to go down the censure path as suggested. We all have better
> things to do - but the time we put into this constituency is also important
> and that input not to be simply ignored.
What I found most disturbing is that the "end product" of some people
seems to simply be to get a position out as quickly as possible, and
not engage in dialogue between members. That dialogue would encourage
people to THINK about their positions, elaborate on their positions,
explain their own thinking, listen to the views of others, and modify
their own views if they're convinced by the others in the group.
Recall the "12 Angry Men" metaphor I employed at:
The way our officers have operated in a high-handed fashion, the
accused would be found guilty summarily, and the jurors wouldn't have
thought twice about their suspicions that the accused might be not
guilty. Instead of a 96 minute masterpiece of a film, it would have
been over in the first 5 minutes.
If this constituency is becoming like "Twitter", where input is in 140
character chunks, and attention spams and dialogue are simply
superficial, that's a step in the wrong direction. Better policy
outcomes are achieved from deeper dialogue and thoughtful analysis,
otherwise we become a constituency of "twits."