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

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

sorry about the silence -- i was driving to the farm this afternoon...

here's my 2 cents.

a) i agree -- we've all learned a lot, and we need to capture that 
knowledge for posterity.  answering the questions, to the best of our 
ability, seems like a Good Plan
b) i submit -- more fact-gathering and learning is required before 
Policy Pronouncements are in order, i think we can handle that in the 
"next steps" suggestions
c) i agree -- we had a ragged charter, and need to make sure that the 
next iteration has one that is framed better, again i think we can 
handle that in "next steps" suggestions
d) i submit -- providing motivation to improve the chartering process 
(through improved awareness, better skill, more attention, etc.) is 
part of the legacy we can pass along.  simply providing "lessons 
learned" are invaluable to those who follow in our footsteps.  that's 
enough process-improvement to satisfy me.  i agree that driving that 
process is out of our scope -- but providing valuable input seems 
like a Good Thing.
here's where i think we're at;

1) Marika needs drafts, indexed by the report-section that you're aiming at

2) i think it would be useful to write *revised* drafts, rather than 
submit old ones for consideration.  why?  because of all the learning 
that has taken place.  that's why i resisted simply re-inserting 
Dave's draft -- because it didn't take into account all that we'd 
learned since it was written.  so -- take your favorite drafts, 
re-read them and re-write them with an eye to all the discussions 
that we've had.  try for a moderate view rather than an extreme 
one.  who knows, maybe we'll all sign on.
3) try to stick to the "old text", "proposed text", "rationale" 
framework -- Marika is a super-hero, but even super-heros need a break.
4) if you're suggesting changes to somebody else's proposal, try 
adding a "friendly amendment" to their "proposed text" -- what i'm 
hoping for is an email that grows like this;
- "old text"
- "proposed text"
- "amended proposed text"
- "a further amended proposed text"
 etc. etc. etc
- note -- the last in the series of "amended proposed texts" is the 
one that's agreed to by all of the participants in the thread-- and 
the one that Marika should stick into the report.
- followed by rationale discussions...  in whatever hashed up 
indented inserted crazy format seems to work for people.  that way, 
discussion can continue, but Marika can ignore it when she's summarizing.
make sense?

i'm off the 'net for the rest of the evening (a Bass Ale is calling 
me from the refrigerator).  i'll check in again tomorrow morning.
onward,

mikey





At 02:02 PM 9/3/2008, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
> 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
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.15/1649 - Release Date: 
> 9/3/2008 7:15 AM