[gnso-consensus-wg] RE: ALL not "Most"
- To: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller@xxxxxxx>, "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>, <gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-consensus-wg] RE: ALL not "Most"
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 05:11:23 -0400
Should I asume then that you are opposed to creative and collaborative work?
That is how I interpret your fear of out-of-the-box thinking. I will defer to
the wishes of the group but I seriously believe that the Board expects more
from us. And I would like to see what the NCUC needs are besides simply a
statement that you want a certain # of votes. Maybe your needs could be met in
another way besides having a certain # of votes. Maybe we can agree on other
parameters that will greatly reduce the reliance on votes.
Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)
From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 04:33 AM Eastern Standard Time
To: Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria; gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: ALL not "Most"
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-
> wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> I want to reiterate what I suggested earlier, possibly before this
> was initiated that I think it would be best to put specifics of
> organizational structure (Council makeup, # of votes) aside until we
> first identify specific needs of each constituency
I am afraid I don't agree with this procedure. I think the concerns are
already known. Those concerns will get further elaborated and clarified
as we explore solutions.
What we need to agree on, and quickly, are the Council's makeup and
number of votes. You can let me decide, as the rep for our constituency,
whether the proposed solutions meet our constituency's concerns, thank
you very much.
I get _really nervous_ when I hear talk of "thinking outside the box"
(what ugly surprise is going to pop out like a jack in the box) and
particularly when it is appended with an invitation to basically cut one
or two constituencies out of the deal, as you state here:
> so that we can then
> think out of box to explore ways of addressing all needs or at least a
> reasonble amount of them in a way that most (if not all) can support.
"Most if not all." Sounds to me like you are already counting on the
fact that one or two of the constituencies in this group can be safely
ignored. So it's like a game of Russian roulette, isn't it? Who's going
to be shafted in this round? Does that sound to you like a good way to
develop trust and reciprocally beneficial solutions? It doesn't to me.
Let's shoot for "all," not "most," ok, Chuck? Can we agree on that?
I can say flat out that I am willing and able to agree to something that
can commend the assent of everyone in this group. And I expect the same
from everyone else.
If you want to know what my constituency's primary concern is, it is
precisely this. You constantly use the language of "consensus," which
means full agreement, but in the end it always means that a smaller
coalition of business interests can cut a deal that excludes us, and
vast numbers of the public who are unrepresented in this process.
Let's take the Board's charge at face value. Let's find consensus. If we
can't let's admit there is no consensus and throw it back to the Board.
> It shouldn't take too long for us to do that and that will provide a
> foundation for moving forward in what I hope will be a more efficient
> process. I am leaving Paris today and will have more time to spend on
> this starting tomorrow. I will try to communicate RyC needs and
> principles as Philip suggested by tomorrow.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 4:07 AM
> > To: gnso-consensus-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-consensus-wg] Discussion paper
> > Hi,
> > Perhaps I was using a different meaning of denigrate then is usual.
> > It is a use I use a lot when speaking about pieces of a
> > system or protocol which are no longer perceived of as
> > useful. Since ICANN is a body with technical/policy role, I
> > thought the usage would be clear.
> > The nomcom fits a role within the system. You are looking to
> > redesign the system and arguing that within this system the nomcom
> > appointee no longer serves a purpose. That, to me, is a
> > denigration.
> > And that is what I think I was arguing against.
> > I did not mean to say you were saying nasty things about us
> > personally or blackening our names.
> > a.
> > On 2 Jul 2008, at 09:53, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> > >
> > > Avri,
> > > I do not believe my discussion paper denigrated the nom com.
> > > It stated an historic fact "Their number (3) is a function of the
> > > present GNSO structure".
> > >
> > > and an open issue "Their relevance in a reformed structure is
> > > unclear". This last remark references the fact the formal nom com
> > > review is incomplete and that we do not know the shape of the next
> > > GNSO structure.
> > >
> > > Philip
> > >
> > >