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

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I completely agree with Greg and Dave on this.

 

Thanks,

Mike R.

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Greg Aaron
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 10:39 AM
To: 'Dave Piscitello'; '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

 

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