Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] version 2 of the drawing
hi Rick, i'm sorry to be displeasing you. but i'm getting pretty good support (on-list and off) to continue this line of effort a little longer so i fear i may continue to raise your blood pressure for a while. do know that i'm doing this because i think it will be useful to have a series of well-documented diagrams that we can use in materials to describe our work, not purely to make you mad. i am going to take advantage of this thread to capture a "teachable moment." the rest of this post is aimed at all of us, not just you Rick. you just triggered it. try not to take it personally. let me run through a little story which many of you have already heard me tell, but it bears repeating. when we disagree, you may think that i'm ill-informed (which i very well may be) and your first response may be to provide me lots of facts, data, arguments, etc. to bring me around. this is a good thing and an important part of this consensus process we're in. however… if we continue to disagree (which we very well might), you may start thinking that i'm stupid -- at which point you may start repeating yourself, or shouting, or cursing. that's not a good thing… and if we continue to disagree, you may conclude that i'm evil and am acting with malicious intent. that would also not be a good thing. so let's all try to stay at the "ill-informed" energy level, rather than the "stupid" or "evil" ones, OK? i've noticed in some of our posts that we have a tendency to jump up to "stupid" or "evil" conversation mode pretty quickly and that's not helpful, especially for those who are new to the process. i also want to clarify the definition of my job-description as chair. it is the duty of us *all* to help locate consensus, not just the chair. if we demanded that of chairs we would limit our chair population to super-heros with negotiating skills far beyond mine. in all regards i'm an equal member of the working group, in my case representing the ISP Constituency, with a few mundane responsibilities tacked on. here's the list of those things, straight out of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. Note: i've added a few couple blank lines to make it a bit easier to read. • 2.2.1 Chair The purpose of a Chair is to call meetings, preside over working group deliberations, manage the process so that all participants have the opportunity to contribute, and report the results of the Working Group to the Chartering Organization. The Chair should underscore the importance of achieving overall representational balance on any sub-teams that are formed. The Chair should make it clear that participation on sub-teams is open to all and he/she should encourage representational balance to the degree possible. However, it should be understood that there will not always be volunteers from every interest group and that it is often acceptable to have a small sub-team that is not totally representational perform an initial role that will later be reviewed by a broader more representational group. In those cases where initially there is insufficient balance, the Chair should make a special outreach effort to those groups not represented. In all cases where the Chair believes that one set of interests or expertise is missing from a group, special efforts must be made to bring that interest or expertise into the group via invitation or other method and the situation must be documented in the final report, including a discussion of the efforts made to redress the balance. Additionally, the Chair should ensure that particular outreach efforts are made when community reviews are done of the group's output, to include reviews from the interests or expertise that were not adequately represented. The Chair should always encourage and, where necessary, enforce the ICANN Standards of Behavior (see 3.0 Norms). that's it. as you can see, my duties are mostly mechanical -- calling meetings, making sure there's balance, making sure that people have equal opportunity to contribute, etc. there is that bit about "presiding over deliberations" but i would contend that nothing in that imparts special consensus-finding duties on me. sure, i'll try. but so should we all. i've chaired working groups that came to consensus, and others that haven't (Vertical Integration being the most hard-fought example). i don't view chairing a working group that doesn't reach consensus as a personal failing in any way -- we just didn't reach consensus, that's all. so don't count on me to drive the rest of us to consensus. we have to get there, each of us, on our own. fair warning Rick, there's another picture in the pipeline that should hit the list within the next half hour or so. that one's about risk assessment (the one i promised on the call last Tuesday). brace yourself. :-) peace, mikey On Feb 3, 2013, at 12:31 PM, Rick Wesson <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > please stop with the pictures, your second image is equally > ill-informed. please, please stop leading us to the weeds and direct > us to the greens. I so need this conversation to find the fare-way, > but all I see is forest. > > first remove all out of scope issues, don't shade them. the delete > your image makeing software. > > as chair of the working group your duty is to help us locate > consensus, not divide and frustrate us to the point of surrender. > > -rick > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> hi all, >> >> thanks for all the hammering (er, feedback). here's another draft to take a >> look at. >> >> Rick, i'm sortof being purposeful in my use of terms. the point of this >> exercise, at least for me, is to get a handle on the difference between what >> is inside and outside our scope. the one exception is the "authoritative" >> point -- we had a long conversation about that in the drafting-team and >> realized that there are at least two definitions of "authoritative" that we >> need to take a look at. here's the relevant snippet from the charter: >> >> The Working Group should consider the term "authoritative" in both the >> technical (the repository of the authoritative data) and policy (who has >> authority over the data) meanings of the word when considering this issue. >> >> >> Alan is correct to twig me about my flippant use of that term. i've >> sprinkled it a few more places, with question marks, to acknowledge that. >> >> i think the biggest change i've made to this drawing is to highlight the >> scope boundary between what we're charged with looking at, and the rest. >> >> see what you think. off to lunch, followed by a nap. i await further >> refinements. :-) >> >> mikey >> >> >> >> >> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: >> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) >> >> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) Attachment:
smime.p7s
|