Re: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Moving forward

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

Hi J. Scott,

As there seems to be consensus already, I'm of course ok with it. My
revision is actually quite small. In addition, as I feel the size issue is
not enforceable, I am not too worried.

So, actually I don't feel too strongly about the issue. I think we can move
forward for now.

Cheers,

Jonne.

On 3/21/09 12:26 AM, "ext J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Jonne:
> 
> I greatly appreciate your point of view.  Thank you.  That said, the issue of
> the revised wording was resolved.  You were the only person to object to Tim's
> wording and I called rough consensus.  Fortunately, that is not the end of
> this issue. The revised wording only relates to a subject that our team is
> going to review with regards to guidelines/protocols for GNSO Working Groups
> in the PDP process.  Accordingly, your points can still be explored more
> thoroughly in the robust exploration of this issue.  The wording we revised
> was not a conclusion but merely a parameter for one point of exploration.
> Since you have a very strong view point on this issue, might I suggest that
> you work with Tim on considering whether the Interim Working Group rules meet
> the first three points of the list.  We hope to discuss this on next week's
> call.  
> 
> Thanks again for all your input.
> 
> J. Scott
> 
>  j. scott evans | senior legal director, global brand & trademark | Yahoo!
> Inc. | evansj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | 408.349.1385
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: "Soininen, Jonne (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <jonne.soininen@xxxxxxx>
> To: ext S. Subbiah <subbiah@xxxxxxxxx>; Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: ext J. Scott Evans <jscottevans@xxxxxxxxx>; Working Group
> <gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 3:11:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Moving forward
> 
> 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