Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] On the basic process question for the gnso-ff-pdp-May08@xxxxxxxxx working group

[Dave Piscitello <dave.piscitello@xxxxxxxxx>]

That's not at all what I said so let me be clear. (I'm only seeking to clarify 
what appears to have been misinterpreted). I'm not including Avri and Chuck in 
my email because frankly this is our mess to clean up.

Failing to produce a report would be unacceptable. I think having the WG throw 
its collective hands up in surrender is not an option, and such action would 
reflect badly on our team. As an admittedly competitive individual, I would 
take that negative reflection very personally.

I am not enthralled by the process, but it's what we have. What I see here is 
not a failure of the process, but an example of how the process can produce a 
negative result.

The GNSO operates in a consensus-seeking manner. It is studying ways to improve 
how it operates. Claiming that our inability to achieve consensus on a subject 
that blossomed well beyond the original scope is due to process is IMO off 
target and inappropriate. Process may have contributed, but as I recall, we all 
volunteered to participate. This is not a "cover up" but a "man up". We ought 
to hold ourselves accountable for the success or failure here. At any time 
during the past several months, any of us could have concluded participation. 
If you're still participating, then you're part of the problem or the solution. 
Choose and let's move on.

Last $.02. I am not certain that any process change would have improved the 
odds of achieving consensus among this group and that really doesn't bother me. 
 We accepted the task of studying what I knew from the outset was a very 
complex problem that had many layers of issues. "Not reaching consensus" should 
certainly have been anticipated as a possible outcome. Similarly, not reporting 
what we discussed, learned, and debated because we can't all leave the room 
smiling at having had everything go our way should never have been considered a 
possible outcome.


On 9/3/08 12:35 PM, "Eric Brunner-Williams" <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



All,

Dave mentioned that honestly reporting a problem with the process would
be somehow bad for the GNSO. I don't know why he thinks so, and I think
pretending that there isn't a problem with the process is a really poor
choice. When I brought this matter up several weeks ago to Avri and
Chuck, the current chair and co-chair of the GNSO, concealing the nature
and scope of the problem was not what they wanted, and as ICANN shifts
from a legislative GNSO to a managerial GNSO, with tasks undertaken by
working groups such as this one, regardless of Avri's or Chuck's views,
it is not what I want. Reform isn't if we have to lie about it.

So I disagree with Dave on the question of cover-up.

There are some who want to "accept the charter and set questions as is"
and some who want to "recharter and defer and/or revise the set questions".

That appears to be the fact situation. Both points of view have been
explored in detail, and while the "recharter" position does not preclude
answering questions, the "accept" position does preclude answering any
questions other than those set, however perfect or imperfect.

Note I've copied both Avri and Chuck in.

Eric