RE: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Definition V4.2

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 02:14 PM 7/29/2008, Joe St Sauver wrote:
> Mike mentioned:
>
> #at this point my plea is for converging definitions rather than
> #diverging.  i'm feeling the need to get a stake in the ground and move ON.
>
> Yeah, but if you we the stake in the ground just for the sake of doing
> so, and do so wrong, that's not progress.
I think there's a point in any project where you have to say "it's 
time to quit tweaking and get on to the next phase."  I think we're 
close to having a working definition that will let us get on to other 
things, so I'm trying to push us just a little bit.  If we're really 
stuck, we can always declare "no consensus" on a given point, but I'm 
hoping we can hit a tipping point here...

> #routing was discussed in previous email, and i find the "discard it"
> #arguments more compelling.
>
> But is there consensus on that point, or is that a unilateral decision
> by the chair?
Unilateral drafting decision by the chair, based on what I read.  I'm 
open to new ideas, but let's try to avoid covering the same ground 
again.  I lean toward's Dave's opinions because he's got such a long 
history with ICANN and understands the boundaries of the organization so well.

> #"intent" has been discussed in previous email AND two phone
> #conversations, and i find the "discard it" arguments more compelling.
>
> I would note that due to circumstances beyond my control, namely being
> on a plane during the second call, I was unable to participate. As a
> matter of procedural fairness, and given the importance of this point,
> I would hope that you would reconsider your decision to call this
> issue decided at this point.
Part of what we're doing here is the political "art of the 
possible."  There are certain topics which have a rich and varied 
context in the 10-year ICANN conversation.  These topics can throw a 
wrench in the works.  If we can avoid them, we stand a much higher 
likelihood of success in moving the ball forward.  I'm persuaded by 
the arguments that favor sidestepping the issue of "intent" if we can.

> #"change in TTL" correction duly noted -- Dave, you want to comment on
> #that?  is it low TTL, or *changing* TTL, or both?
>
> Changing TTLs simply aren't seen (other than TTL's that are just
> normally decrementing the way TTLs always do in caching resolvers).
>
> But don't just trust me -- ask some of the other researchers I've
> steered your way.
>
> I'm not trying to be obstinant, I just don't want to see us issue a
> report that begins with a fundamentally incorrect description of the
> problem.
>
> "Measles: a disease characterized by green spots and grey stripes
> of the skin, ..."
One option is to come back with a report that says "We couldn't 
arrive a definition of what fast flux is, so the next phase of the 
process is to figure that out."  Again, I'm pushing now because I 
think we're pretty close to agreement.
I think it will bring us closer to closure if we;

a) suggest incremental new wording in this, and other, areas (not 
wholesale replacement, which loses all the meaning we've built up in 
all the conversation to date), and
b) argue the pros and cons of the incremental-change proposal

As I said, my sense is that we're close.  Just a little push to get 
us over the top.
m