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

[Dave Piscitello <dave.piscitello@xxxxxxxxx>]

Eric,

I want to conclude the working group activity with a  hopefully useful record 
of what was learned over the past months. I believe such a report would prove 
constructive towards defining a future, more useful charter.

I won't argue that the existing charter is sufficient, but given what we've 
accomplished, I can't say it was useless. Do you so strongly feel that nothing 
of merit or of interest to parties outside this WG came from the past several 
months of WG activity that you would find some satisfaction in telling the GNSO 
"the charter was useless, try again"?

I may not have agreed with several WG members over the course of this project, 
but I learned quite a bit about the breadth of the problem. I benefited from 
having perspectives other than mine presented even in heated discussions. I 
think others would benefit from a report sharing the facts,  insights and 
opinions. I can't see the value in relegating much of we've discussed to the 
recycle bin because of issues with the charter and sending the GNSO and future 
WGs off on a snark hunt.



On 9/3/08 2:02 PM, "Eric Brunner-Williams" <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Greg,

I know your position, feel free to do just what you choose, but that's
not what everyone has chosen, and to represent otherwise is simply
invalidating anyone who doesn't, for whatever reason, share the view
you've expressed.

Speaking of other WG experiences, the WHOIS WG declined to make a single
recommendation, and instead issued two -- one for "more studies are
useful" and one for "more studies are not useful". The GNSO asked that
the WG try and make find the hypothesises of the proposals for "more
studies" and in phase 2 of that WG's life, did so. That was not easy,
but the conflict between those two positions never attempted to conceal
or invalidate the existence of the difference between them. Different
people, different conduct.

We don't need to fulfill the current charter. You, Dave, Mike R, Joe,
Marc, ... do. I (and I don't know who else, but not too many concalls
ago we were considering consensus on just this point) want to get a
charter that isn't worse than useless.

There's always a "don't think, go fast" rationale, and I didn't hear you
offer to take Mike O'Conner's place as Chair, as he clearly said that
continuing down the path of forcing one choice to the exclusion of the
other, in particular the choice you've expressed, would require a new Chair.

Greg Aaron wrote:
>
> I generally second what Dave said. We need to fulfill the current
> charter by creating a report; the report needs to summarize what we
> learned and what we still do not know; a lack of consensus is fine to
> admit (and is one known possible outcome in any WG); and it is
> perfectly fine to state both consensus and minority opinions since
> that helps educate the community. (Although I think a minority opinion
> should have standing of some sort, i.e. consist either of a
> Constituency, or a group of more than one or two individual WG members.)
>
> Suggestions for a new charter or improved ICANN processes are also
> fine, but should not divert us too much from the more immediate job at
> hand. Several WGs have faced many of the same general problems as we
> have. ICANN and the GNSO are already considering revisions to WG
> processes, and while it could be good to provide input regarding our
> experience, it's not our job to drive that process.
>
> All best,
>
> --Greg
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Dave Piscitello
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 03, 2008 1:17 PM
> *To:* Eric Brunner-Williams; gnso-ff-pdp-May08@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] On the basic process question for
> the gnso-ff-pdp-May08@xxxxxxxxx working group
>
> 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
>