RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] refined version of Roberto's bullet-points -- pls review/comment within 24 hours
- To: roberto@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] refined version of Roberto's bullet-points -- pls review/comment within 24 hours
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 06:11:46 -0700
Thanks Roberto. Regarding if/how we let the Board know, I think they
already do. Board members follow this list and so by posting the bullet
points and the comments/edits to them, I think the Board will have that
info available when they meet.
My concern especially in last few months on process is that "consensus
of a WG" and comments of individuals are not the same thing. Consensus
should be something that is as clearly identifiable as possble, and
something we protect from corruption/capture (intended or not) with all
vigor. As managers of GNSO policy, it is the Council who are responsible
for the integrity of the PDP and claims of consensus by WGs should be
reviewed and approved by them.
This is also partly why I have concerns about the growing use of
so-called community working groups, but that's a topic for a different
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] refined version of Roberto's bullet-points
> -- pls review/comment within 24 hours
> From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, October 26, 2010 7:48 am
> To: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> On the contents:
> > > "While the WG has not identified exact examples there is a general
> > > feeling that some exceptions could be granted."
> I think that this formulation is better than mine, for the reasons given by
> Tim and endorsed by others.
> I gave examples only to explain what I meant, but the examples in themselves
> were not meant to be exhaustive, so let's strike them out.
> On the process:
> I really don't understand what is the issue in letting the Board know, at
> the eve of their meeting, where we are.
> I fully understand that our reference is the Council, and I agree that this
> is the formal path to be used, but I am a bit worried by the schizophreny we
> express by, on one hand, applying short informal procedures and processes to
> produce results, while on the other hand we become suddenly formal in the
> reporting of what we did.
> I agree that our bullet point list does not add to what the Board already
> knows. But on the other hand, what is the harm in reiterating the message?
> If the decision is not to send the message to the Board, fine, the co-chairs
> will comply with it. Which would not exclude, anyway, that one of the
> co-chairs reports (on a personal level) on the results of the WG. In
> summary, what I don't understand is why any member of the internet community
> can send a message to the Board on the eve of a crucial decision except a WG
> that wants to report on months of activity focused on the subject (in terms
> of resource expenditure, we can surely talk about person/years of focused
> work by this WG).