[gnso-vi-feb10] Formal reprimand directed at Eric
- To: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Formal reprimand directed at Eric
- From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 07:25:21 -0500
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
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.
> 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.
- - - - - - - - -
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)