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

["Greg Aaron" <gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Mike O.  Sounds like you, Chuck, and myself are thinking similarly.
All best,
--Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 5:55 PM
To: 'Fast Flux Workgroup'
Subject: Re: FW: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] On the basic process question for the
gnso-ff-pdp-May08@xxxxxxxxx working group


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


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eric
Brunner-Williams
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 2:03 PM
To: gaaron@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Dave Piscitello'; 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


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.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 3:00 PM
To: Eric Brunner-Williams; gnso-ff-pdp-May08@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Avri Doria
Subject: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] RE: On the basic process question for the
gnso-ff-pdp-May08@xxxxxxxxx working group


My personal opinion is that the group has some flexibility in terms of
what the report contains.  For sure, it should contain a good summary of
the lessons learned, which can include additional questions raised.  To
the extent that any of the charter questions were answered, the answers
should be included.  If any of the charter questions were not answered,
an explanation would be helpful.  Because the Council will need to
decide on next steps, any recommendations that the WG has would be
useful; if there are multiple recommendations without group consensus,
competing recommendations could be included along with WG levels of
support for each one along with rationale.

Based on what I have seen, the WG has done a very large amount of work
so the report may be very long.  In that regard, an executive summary
would be a very good idea.


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