[gnso-vi-feb10] Formal reprimand directed at Eric

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

a couple points here.

point number one -- this is the second repeat, and a formal one -- please stop 
the confrontational stuff.  "dimmer lights of the Board" type comments aimed at 
groups or individuals (which you pepper through most of your posts) do not 
advance your cause nor the working group.    

point number two -- this is not *my* working group, nor is it *my* approach.  
it's *our* working group and *we* will arrive at some consensus-backed 
suggestions for the Applicant Guidebook.  or we won't.  handicapping several 
invented groups of people and predicting their failure to reach consensus 
leaves me scratching my head.  it's also above my pay grade -- my job is to 
facilitate a process where people can try to accomplish something.  i view 
negotiations between groups of people with conflicting objectives as part of 
the essence of what makes us human -- and interesting.  i am more than 
optimistic that this group will succeed.

my hope is that the environment *we* build as a working group will remove as 
many barriers as possible from getting that negotiation done.  you're not 
helping with that.  now "stopping the negotiation process" is a perfectly valid 
objective.  however it is specifically called out as a violation of the 
consensus decision making process by any reference you choose to cite.  you're 
welcome to hold down views from any point on the spectrum you choose, but it's 
not OK to attack other people or use the levers of consensus to wreck the 
process.

back to point number one.  please stop the "bi-weekly attacks" on the 
co-chairs, WG members, the working group and others in the ICANN community.  i 
noted to that member that they're actually quite a bit more frequent than 
bi-weekly.  they've been noted by many and this is your first formal reprimand 
from one of the co-chairs.

mikey

> 
> Mikey,
> 
> You're free to try and "begin the process of developing a single draft
> recommendation" but you're stepping into the same mess Staff created
> when they took the GNSO's recommendation, and the Board's resolution
> at Paris, and turned that into a one-size-fits-all application process.
> 
> You have the additional self-imposed handicapped of being unable to
> draft anything without first ensuring that the SR advocates, supported
> by the dimmer lights on the Board who missed the
> .tm-will-solve-cybersquatting discussion, held several times since
> 1998, get to flood the root with brands.
> 
> Years later and we don't have a single new registry, and there's no
> shortage of "rational actors" who insist that no application may be
> evaluated before their application.
> 
> I think compromise between the SR advocates is possible, even likely.
> 
> I think compromise between the no restrictions advocates is possible,
> even likely.
> 
> I think that compromise between the continuity advocates is possible,
> even likely.
> 
> However, compromise between any two of these, let alone all three, is
> unlikely, perhaps not even possible, as fundamentally, there are
> businesses who's plans will fail if the rule changes they advocate are
> not obtained, and businesses who's plans will fail if the rule changes
> they advocate are obtained.
> 
> I'm certain there will be two or more policy proposals offered to the
> Council, and to the Board, and I'm assuming the outcome will be zero.
> 
> Eric

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)