Re: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Moving forward

["Soininen, Jonne (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <jonne.soininen@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Perhaps my wording was poorly written, and I read Tim's proposal a bit
hastily. I first read the expertise clause to be limiting the participation
to experts, and it actually isn't. Sorry about this confusion.

There is still the size issue. I don't think you can enforce it. When you
set the limit to something, you have a problem if a new person wants to
join. You cannot really turn that person away just because you say the size
would be too much if that person has something important to contribute. The
same thing happens even if 20 people show up. How do you select, which of
those twenty people can or cannot participate?

I also tried to add a requirement that when somebody comes to a WG that
person has to commit to the targets of the WG. This was to address the void
of control removing the size created. Basically the idea is that if somebody
only joins a WG to obviously disrupt the WG the behavior can be addressed.
Of course, this is enforceable only in the very obvious cases.

Using Tim's wording, perhaps this would be closer to what I mean:

"Be open to anyone interested in joining and offering their insights
and expertise to contribute to WG work to reach its goals defined by the
charter; to the extent feasible include participants with the expertise,
skills, and interests that may be deemed necessary based on the subject
matter."

I hope this helps.

Cheers,

Jonne.



On 3/19/09 8:04 PM, "ext S. Subbiah" <subbiah@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>    
>>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
> 

-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia Siemens Networks

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
E-mail: jonne.soininen@xxxxxxx