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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Roberto:
I sympathize with Jeff's opinion too. Please stop wasting time on this. I think 
you and Mikey both have made a mistake by singling out a particular person, 
obviously after being pressured by a few people who have more connection to you 
and more willingness to invest in complaining than I do. While I realize your 
intentions were good, the interventions have worsened the situation rather than 
improving it. And they have raised questions about impartiality.

In the heat of discussion sometimes people say things that rankle others. 
Unless it's a very serious and continual breach that obstructs the work of the 
group, however, we just have to roll with it. The chairs should not take sides 
in these kinds of petty things, and they only make things worse by doing so. 
Next time, encourage the complainers to be a bit more mature and if they want 
to complain, to approach me directly. And make sure that the complaints have 
some bearing on the actual issues before us. That's all I am going to say on 
this.

--MM


From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano
Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 1:23 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] [OFF TOPIC] - but not really

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.)