Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Choices

[Dave Piscitello <dave.piscitello@xxxxxxxxx>]

I would also like to continue the work so (1) is appealing. I think we have 
learned far too much and exposed far too many insights to scrap the WG at this 
point.

I imagine that the Council would make the decision to recharter; if true, (2) 
is not an option (and so neither is (3)).

I think (4) is available to anyone who participates in the process.

It would be disappointing to see WG members choose (5) at this point.

If I read Eric's email correctly, the paragraphs after (5) offer an 
opinion/commentary.

The editing process is unwieldy, and this is why I asked if Marika could 
produce a working draft. I still believe this is worthwhile and so agree with 
Mike R. on this point as well.


On 9/29/08 1:12 PM, "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Unsurprisingly, I think we should go with Option 1 to continue the work that
was getting done before our last call.  There has been strong agreement on
almost everything put forward for the report.  We were chartered to answer
the questions put forth by Council, and most of the group has expended a lot
of effort to try to do that in our report.  Anyone is free to produce a
statement of their alternative views, but nobody should be allowed to
obstruct the work of the group on the basis that they don't like the
charter.

We had an agreed process for drafting and editing the report.  That process
fell apart on our last call, but that need not have happened and the process
can be revived under a new chair.

Thanks,
Mike R.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eric
Brunner-Williams
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 9:50 AM
To: gnso-ff-pdp-May08@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Choices


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.
>
>
>