RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Polls and consensus and the meaning of life -- was "Table order"

["Hammock, Statton" <shammock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mikey, 

 

Indeed, those are some deep philosophical questions. I'll cogitate them
with you sometime over a martini......on me, of course, for all of your
hard work and patience with this group. J 

 

Statton 

 

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 5:40 PM
To: Roberto Gaetano
Cc: 'Ron Andruff'; 'Antony Van Couvering'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Polls and consensus and the meaning of life
-- was "Table order"

 

Complete agreement with my senior co-chair!.

 

dang!  Jothan beat me to the "take a straw vote on whether to have such
a poll" idea.  

 

i'm all about continuing to beat a dead horse...   :-)

 

of course, under the joke lies an interesting question (NOT for this
working group, but maybe for the GNSO and ICANN as a whole) which is
this.  is "consensus" always the right decision-making model?  my humble
view is that consensus decision-making relies heavily on the ability to
frequently and accurately assess the "sense of the group"...  

 

one of the things i've come to realize is that this is MUCH more easily
done when people are in the same room (like the broadband task force i
was on) where a chair can just ask for a show of hands.  but when we're
spread out and working either by phone or by email, frequent "taking the
pulse" is much harder to do.  the best example of the "quick/simple get
the sense of the group" process going really wrong and setting us back
was on the last call when the Adobe polling got away from me and we lost
Avri.  

 

which in turn leads me to reflect on whether consensus is really always
the best decision-making process for the kind of work we've been doing.
another critical success factor for consensus decision-making is to have
"enough time" available, whatever that turns out to be.  that's where
the group gets to work out minor differences, gain a better
understanding of other views, build trust, build friendship, etc.  those
of us who met each other in Brussels gained a lot from that, and normal
consensus decision-making assumes that to be the situation.

 

i think we REALLY stretched the limits of all of those things with this
really-dispersed, over-the-wire, super-tight-timeline working group.  i
think we're doing great, given all those pressures.  but maybe some of
us owe it to the community to wander off and cogitate about the
implications of all that, and whether "bottom-up CONSENSUS-based" is
really the right model when a decision needs to be made really fast.  in
fact -- my trivia question of the day is this -- when did "bottom-up"
get transmogrified into "bottom-up consensus-based" in the ICANN credo?
was that a conscious decision and, if so, who made it and why?

 

just ramblings...  not even vaguely thinking that the WG should do
anything about that.

 

no reply needed...

 

mikey

 

On Jul 21, 2010, at 3:09 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:





Let's have a poll!

 

OK, OK, I admit it is a bad joke.

 

R.

 

 

         

________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff
        Sent: Wednesday, 21 July 2010 21:54
        To: 'Antony Van Couvering'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Table order

        Can we split the hair any further?  In all seriousness, do you
really think that would add value...?  Please Antony, let's focus on the
things that matter.  This exercise is trying enough as it is.

         

        RA

         

        Ronald N. Andruff

        RNA Partners, Inc.

         

         

________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Antony Van Couvering
        Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 3:17 PM
        To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Table order

         

        Section 5, the table of support:

         

        The proposal should either be ranked by level of support, or
alphabetically, or according to some other acceptable rationale...

         

        Antony

         

         

         

        On Jul 21, 2010, at 10:38 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:

        
        
        
        

        Thanks Alan.  You got to it just before me. 

         

        I do belive I'm a member of the WG but I'm not on the list.
While I did not get a chance to vote in the last round, I am irrevocably
for Free Trade and would wish to always be noted as such. 

         

        Thanks much.

        Carlton
        
        ==============================
        Carlton A Samuels
        Mobile: 876-818-1799
        Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
        =============================
        
        
        

        On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Alan Greenberg
<alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

        
        I just did a cross-check and Volker is the only one who voted
and is not on the list. However, I noted that Carlton Samuels, who did
not vote, has been a member of the WG (or at least has been on the
mailing list). So that makes the list of WG members who were eligible to
vote at least 66.
        
        Alan

        
        
        At 21/07/2010 12:26 PM, Berry Cobb wrote:

        I will ask when was the Volunteer list last updated?  Not to
single out
        anyone but for example Volker is not on this list.
        
        
        Berry Cobb
        Infinity Portals LLC
        berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        http://infinityportals.com <http://infinityportals.com/> 
        866.921.8891
        
        -----Original Message-----
        From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
        On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
        Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 9:00 AM
        To: Mike O'Connor; Neuman, Jeff
        Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] New version of the report-draft
candidate --
        now Version 5
        Importance: High
        
        
        Still can't be right. The JN2 line totals 63 and the others all
total 67.
        
        The Volunteer list (excluding staff) on the Wiki
        
(https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?list_of_working_gro
up_v
        olunteers)
        has 68 names, so excluding the two Board members and the two
        co-chairs the totals *should* be 64.
        
        Alan
        
        At 21/07/2010 09:38 AM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
        >ahhh...
        >
        >the Did Not Vote column now reflects the *total* number of
people in
        >the working group.  that was another sub-thread in which it was
        >pointed out that not everybody took the poll.  that previous
version
        >was a listing of people who took the poll, but didn't answer
that question.
        >
        >mikey

         

         

         

 

- - - - - - - - -

phone    651-647-6109  

fax                          866-280-2356  

web        http://www.haven2.com

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