[gnso-vi-feb10] [OFF TOPIC] - but not really

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

A couple of comments from the co-chair.
First, I support Mikey's action. We also had a quick chat over the phone.
Second, there was no action, at least that I am aware of, to shut Milton up.
Actually, I think that Milton's contributions are essential to the
completeness of the points of view expressed by the WG.
Third, what has been criticized is not at all the substance, but the form.
Personally, I believe that opinions can be expressed without taking the risk
of offending others. As a co-chair, I ask that care is given to moderate the
language accordingly. I understand that sometimes people might feel
compelled to add to an otherwise moderate comment a bit of "spice", to
create the "Oooohhh" effect, but often this is not helpful for the
achievement of a compromise, that requires first and upmost the mutual
respect of the different stakeholders.
In summary, this is not a court where we have to decide whether some
language is permitted or not. It is a group of people that are working
together and the language used has to be the one that favours building the
consensus, not the characterization of the opponents. I wish we will, in
particular towards the end of a long (perceived long, although actually
relatively short) and intense work, be able to put all odds on our side to
negotiate a compromise solution. The use of potentially inflammatory words,
or, to make an example related to other contributors, the use of convoluted
sentences that will take 15 minutes to a non-native english speaker to
parse, do not help.
Last but not least, while I sympathize with Jeff's opinion that to continue
discussing about this might distract the group from specific VI matters, I
felt that as co-chair I needed to speak up.
Cheers,
Roberto
 
 


  _____  

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Friday, 09 July 2010 19:20
To: 'Mike O'Connor'
Cc: Jon Nevett; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] the "it excludes some applicants" argument



I reject this reprimand as uncalled for, and inaccurate. The word "jihad"
was not "broadly directed" it was focused very specifically on the campaign
waged by a very specific group of people, even to the extent of setting up a
web site. http://intratldregistryregistrarseparation.org/ 

 

If anyone lacks the sense of context and perspective to grasp the humor in
the use of the word jihad, I apologize to you and feel sympathy for you. 

 

Frankly, I suspect that the reactions to my posts have nothing to do with
the choice of words and everything to do with substantive disagreements, and
frustration on the part of certain parties that they are unable to refute or
answer my arguments. To use your own words, Mikey, this post of yours is
"not a helpful contribution." Sorry if you're getting behind the scenes
pressure to shut me up, but you should know by now that it won't work. 

 

--MM

 

From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 5:23 PM
To: Milton L Mueller
Cc: Jon Nevett; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] the "it excludes some applicants" argument

 

Milton,

 

a reprimand -- the use of the word "jihad" in this context, and directed so
broadly, has triggered several responses to the co-chairs.  please note that
the use of this kind of language can trigger very different reactions in a
group like this and, it's safe to say, is pretty inflammatory under any
circumstances.  it's also not a helpful contribution, especially at this
late stage when the group is already feeling a fair amount of pressure after
a very long hard effort to find middle ground.  please resist the urge to
stir the waters this way.  

 

thanks,

 

mikey

 

 

On Jul 7, 2010, at 11:38 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:





 

Milton, so we have you to thank for this :-).  

 

<evil laugh>

 

My recollection is that the registrars and registries on Council voted
against the NCSG motion to form a PDP in the first place because there was a
sense that the VI issue would not be "solved" via a PDP.  

 

I would frame it differently. Many registrars voted against a PDP because a
few of the more vocal ones thought they had negotiated private deals with
staff that would give them what they wanted. But none of them knew exactly
what staff would do ultimately. And none of them were able to demonstrate
any consensus around a specific solution. And we had a pretty serious jihad
from some of the registries (what is now the RACK group). While both NCSG
and CSG (I think, not intending to speak for them) felt that the issues had
not been properly aired.

 

Given all that, I saw no practical alternative to making an honest attempt
to arrive at an agreed policy through an open process that involves all the
stakeholder groups in direct discussions and negotiations. Do you?

 

The idea that we can punt policy making to staff and board has its appeal, I
know. But a more mature contemplation of its meaning tells us that the whole
model underlying ICANN is failing if we have to resort to that every time we
face a difficult issue.

 

 

- - - - - - - - -

phone  651-647-6109  

fax                        866-280-2356  

web      http://www.haven2.com

handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
etc.)