RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] REVISED Proposal-support poll

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Mikey. I agree with you. This poll was primarily for the WG to
determine where its members stood, to help with the interim report
preparation, and possibly facilitate further discussion/negotiation
between the members.

Any poll open to the public, and modifiable by anyone has limited
usefullness. That's why only the WG members' responses on this one are
useful, because they can all be verified directly with the WG member.

But the security and identity issues cannot be downplayed, not just in
this WG but in all future WGs. Right now the WG thing is too easy to
game and monkey with, which makes it very easy to challenge. Remember,
these WGs are not developing *optional* technical standards, they are
developing regulation. Hopefully the PPSC will take this into
consideration when reviewing the work product of their work teams.


Tim  
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] REVISED Proposal-support poll
From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, June 12, 2010 4:50 pm
To: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>


argh.

i wish this email list was faster -- there's about a 10 minute delay and
our emails crossed.

i don't disagree with Roberto (naturally). but i went ahead and closed
the poll based on a submission from outside the working group, and based
on the email thread of yesterday and i think i'll stick with that for
now. there's another problem with those polls -- anybody from anywhere
on the Internet can log on to the poll and change entries. *that* came
as something of a surprise and is a bit harder to audit/manage than
separating out WG people vs non-WG people.

so let's leave it like this -- *anybody* can send me an email with their
views (including people outside the WG) and i'll post them to the poll.
and next time i'll tune up the security a little bit.

sorry about the crossed wires.

mikey


On Jun 12, 2010, at 4:36 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> 
> Mikey,
> 
>> as your co-chair and scribe, i don't have any objection to 
>> others taking the poll. but it would make my life a lot 
>> easier if they indicated that they are not WG members when 
>> they fill out their entry so i can tell who is who when i 
>> summarize the poll. i admit, i worry a little bit about 
>> craziness and pranks, but i'm willing to wait and cross that 
>> bridge if we come to it.
>> 
>> Roberto? you have any thoughts either way on this?
> 
> I confess that I am seriously puzzled by the exchanges I see in the last
> couple of days wrt the poll.
> Personally, I have no objections whatsoever to "non-members" taking the
> poll, for two reasons, and with a caveat.
> The first reason, is that you cannot prevent it. Although this might not
> seem a good reason per se, it simply means that I see no point in putting an
> additional burden in terms of control, count, identity check, aso. for
> something that is not a vote, but a poll.
> The second one, maybe more substantial, is that I do believe that there are
> people who did not subscribe to the WG because they knew that they could not
> afford the commitment of tons of emails, need for quick responses to issues,
> two weekly teleconferences (maybe at impossible hours from their time
> zones), but that would like to express an opinion anyway. And I believe that
> their opinion is useful to the co-chairs in assessing the situation.
> The caveat is, surprise surprise, the same one that Mikey has expressed: a
> way to identify them as "external contributors" to the poll, not WG members.
> Anyway, the reactions I have read, like the reasons for not allowing
> external folks to participate to the poll (as they could "stuff the ballot
> box") is IMHO disproportionate. And the reason is that this is not a "ballot
> box", but a "poll". When the co-chairs will count the preferences, assuming
> that we will do it in a formal way, it will not be with the spirit of
> declaring a "winner", not even a "majority candidate" that will be in a sort
> of pole position for a compromise solution. Nothing at all of this. I cannot
> speak for my colleague co-chair, but personally what I was looking for was
> not the first choice of you folks, which I probably could have easily
> guessed without having to go through a poll, but which are the grey areas
> (actually, the "yellow" areas). What are the possibilities to create a
> common ground, even limited.
> 
> What I see, is a dicomforting scenario. What is upsetting to me is not so
> much the clear cut in two opposite camps (those who favour RACK+ are against
> JN+2 or FreeTrade, and viceversa), but other things. For most, actually
> close to all, members the opinions on the highest ranking proposals are
> either green or red, with very little yellow margin. But that was
> predictable. What is upsetting is that members of the WG are starting
> saying: "But xyz did not vote, did he have the chance to vote, it would have
> been +1 for proposal abc". Folks, for the nth time, this is not a "vote". I
> do not care if proposal P1 or P2 is liked by a few people more than proposal
> P3 or P4. What I care is what are the elements of proposals P1, P2, P3 or P4
> that are not acceptable to some, in order to go to a next phase in which we
> can see what we can do to smoothen some aspects of the proposals in order to
> reduce the concern and make them consider less "risky".
> But I see that in spite of the work done so far, we are still in
> beauty-contest mode. We are not here, to repeat a metaphore used a few weeks
> ago, to choose the best molecule, but to break the molecules into atoms,
> pick the atoms that are acceptable (or at least not violently opposed), and
> build with them the molecule of consensus.
> To explain better the way I see things, let me make an example.
> One question is not whether we should have or not VI, but under what
> circumstances, and with which safeguards, the opponents of VI would feel
> sufficiently protected from the risks they see in VI to accept a limited
> test. Another question is not whether small TLDs should be obliged to have
> ICANN accredited Registrars or not, but rather under which circumstances
> could an exception be made, and what are the conditions and risks that we
> need to take into account before defining which is the extent of the
> exception.
> Analysing the result of the poll so far, I see that among the people who
> state they cannot live with the status quo (Board Motion and/or DAGv4) we
> have friends of proposal abc and foes of proposal xyz, and friends of
> proposal xyz and foes of proposal abc. Knowing that if we cannot come to a
> consensus, you will not get the proposal you like, but the status quo you
> don't like, I count on you to come together and forget about your favourite
> proposal, and help crafting a "new thing" (a "bossa nova", as the Brazilians
> would say) that you and others can live with. To replace the status quo you
> cannot live with.
> 
> It is too late to get something done in this direction before Brussels. But
> I count very much on the F2F in Brussels (meeting on Saturday and bar
> anytime) to narrow the gap we have as of today.
> 
> Cheers,
> Roberto

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