Re: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Moving forward

["S. Subbiah" <subbiah@xxxxxxxxx>]

Personally in my experience at ICANN since its first meeting in 1999, 
has repeatedly suggested that most decisions at ICANN are taken by 
committees that are pretty thin on expertise or often even appropriate 
background - even none, I daresay. So the dilemma is this - Jonne's 
point is for an open committee and let market forces sort themselves out 
- i.e. people with expertise will care enough to join and influence the 
debate in a way that produces decisions that experts might view as being 
in the right direction. But in practice and given the volunteer nature 
of ICANN (as with other slike IETF etc), while the real world operates 
in $$$, and the painfully slow decision making process (yeasr and 
decades) the result has been often a lack of decisons being taken by a 
lack of informed expertise.
So what do we do ? The current state of affairs in the world economy and 
ongoings on Wall Street in the past year and days, suggests very clearly 
that market forces do not always work and even an avowedly democratic 
capitalist nation like the USA is  essentially nationalising banks and 
telling people how to behave, and popular opinion is majority toward 
"governmnet needs to step" in etc. and play school principal.
Despite the above points of view, given my own experience with long 
ICANN history on the degree of expertise-less decision-making, I 
personally would  have been in favor of "mandatory" requirement for 
demonstrating expertise (whatever that means).  But I  was willing to go 
along with the first incarnation and then of
Tim Ruiz modification in the direction of even less expertise. Going 
further in the direction of Jonne's view (which I do appreciate and I do 
belive IETF is a different beast where amongst engineers there is an 
unwritten bragsheet based on technical expertise before anyone even pays 
any attention - this may not be the case with the ICANN mix of people 
and talents) I would find would water down everything back to no 
expertise at all.
Just my two cents.

Cheers

Subbiah



Tim Ruiz wrote:

> Sorry for the belated response. However, the second version I submitted
> of enumerated task 1 was meant to address exactly what Jonne pointed
> out. Avri had brought it up during the meeting.
>
> The version I submitted says we will *try* to have the necessary
> expertise, which we certainly should do when certain expertise is called
> for. It does not say only experts, or that it *must* have specific
> experts. However, Jonne's version does not commit us to at least
> attempting to find necessary expertise when called for.
>
> Also, regarding size, my version only says *manageable size.* We may
> find that is 100 people, we may not. It does not place a limit on it,
> but it allows us to place a limit if we find it necessary. 
>
> So I support my second version, but cannot support Jonne's.
>
> Tim 
>
>  -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Moving forward
> From: "Soininen, Jonne (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <jonne.soininen@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, March 04, 2009 12:29 pm
> To: "ext J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>, Working Group
> <gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> Hello everybody,
>
> As I'm new to this group, I would like present myself. I am Jonne
> Soininen
> and I work for Nokia Siemens Networks. I have been working in the IETF
> for
> some time serving in different roles including document editor, working
> group chair, and the past number of years as a member of IETF
> Administrative
> Oversight Committee (IAOC). I have served as the chair of the IAOC for
> the
> past year.
>
> In addition to the IETF, I have been active in 3GPP, ETSI, and OMA over
> the
> years, which have quite different history, culture, and procedures.
> Anyways,
> I would believe that in spirit and philosophy ICANN is most probably
> closer
> to the IETF than the others.
>
> Then to the matter at hand:
>
> 1) Size: I would think that the general requirement for the WGs is to be
> as
> open and as inclusive as possible. Keeping that in mind, I wonder if the
> size of a WG would be a problem.
>
> For instance, the WG that I'm responsible for in the IETF has hundreds
> of
> participants. However, basically just 10-20 people are really active.
> The
> others just are there for the show.
>
> In addition, having a rule that doesn't put any quantity to the size
> could
> certainly cause problems if enforced. Who says what is too big?
>
> 2) Expertise: Expertise is really difficult to quantify, and thus, would
> be
> really difficult to enforce either. You just cannot say to anybody that
> they
> don't have the expertise to be part of the group - even if they refuse
> to be
> constructive.
>
> I would propose the following wording:
>
> "Be open to anyone interest in joining, offering their insights and
> expertise to contribute to WG work to reach its goals as defined by the
> WG
> charter" (perhaps somebody can translate than from Finglish to English)
>
> That basically keeps the WG open, but adds the possibility to say that
> if
> somebody is not constructive to reach the goals of the WG would allow
> the
> chairman to point that out.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jonne.
>
>
> On 3/4/09 7:47 PM, "ext J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  
>
> > Dear All:
> >
> > Thank you all for the hard work on Saturday. I am attaching the notes that
> > Ken Bour, ICANN Staff, so graciously put together and forwarded to me earlier.
> >
> > Please review this as you begin to think about the work we have ahead,
> > specifically the drafting of our work plan which I want us to have finished by
> > March 21, 2009. Also, Tim Ruiz put forth a motion to amend one of the action
> > items put forth by the Board's committee. In particular, point one on the
> > Wiki. To assist you all in considering this, I have listed below the language
> > Tim is suggesting:
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________________
> > ________--
> >
> > To get us started, here is another idea:
> >
> > 1. Be open to anyone interested in joining and offering their insights
> > and expertise; with a balance that keeps working groupsto a manageable
> > size and to the extent feasible include participants with the expertise,
> > skills, and interests that may be deemed necessary based on the subject
> > matter.
> >
> >
> > Tim 
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________________
> > ___________
> >
> > I would like us to consider this and discuss it on this list over the next few
> > days. On Monday, March 9th, I am going to ask Glenn to post a call for
> > consensus on this suggested revision. I will also be contacting the list
> > early next week to set up our first conference call.
> >
> > Again, thank you for your hard work Saturday and I am looking forward to
> > working with each of you on these important issues.
> >
> > Kind regards.
> >
> > J. Scott
> >
> > j. scott evans | senior legal director, global brand & trademark | Yahoo! Inc.
> > | evansj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | 408.349.1385
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >    
>