ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-ff-pdp-may08]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Choices

  • To: gnso-ff-pdp-May08@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Choices
  • From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:49:42 -0400


We can ...

1. continue as is. This would require finding a chair. The chair could either delegate WG editors to produce two or more texts, or continue to try and produce a single document.

2. recharter.

3. formally bifurcate (or multi-furcate if that is a word, and if not its mine), combining the first sub-option of #1, and #2, above.

4. invite brief statements of positions and reflections on process and lessons learned from the participants, other alternatives are possible.

5. cease participating.

The editing process has become unwieldly, with the locus of editorial decision being Mike during call-time, rather than using the list, or the wiki, or smaller sub-groups, which is how the WHOIS group managed to get the editorial work of producing two uncompromising views out recently on the "more studies vs no more studies" question. The Adobe tools are attractive, but I don't think we've really gotten anything that couldn't be done by just a chat app in parallel with a voip app or plain old dialtone and a pencil and paper.

Then there are the problems of disagreement without being disagreeable, and queuing messages in quite a few inboxes, and taking up quite a few people's time during calls, with things that aren't actually constructive, or premeditated.

I spent hours on the 24th going over all 58 proposed changes to the updated proposals overview document, and I expect others have also. I'm not enamored with the synchronicity, latency and bandwidth requirements of the Adobe approach to managing the work products of the working group, and "which version?" question for an array of documents and document formats. Document management seems to have displaced text management and that neither resolves difference or adequately illuminates it either.

My preferences are #2, #3, #4, and #5. I expect there are others who prefer #1, and only the single text sub-option.

If anyone wants to attempt to work on a text that isn't focused on the "six questions", off-list, that's what I'm doing, and I'm always ready to be voted off the island.

Eric

Avri Doria wrote:


Hi,

Just quick FYI to let the group know that we will get back to you all shortly about how we plan to continue this effort and to try and figure out what the next steps are.

Thanks.

a.






<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy