<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] REVISED Proposal-support poll -- consensus around "atoms"
- To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] REVISED Proposal-support poll -- consensus around "atoms"
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 07:24:05 -0700
<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div>Mikey,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Actually, I think your approach will only harden the positions further.
But more importanlym, this attempt to put even more pressure on everyone to
*hurry up* and come to some consensus is completely off base. We're not talking
about picking wine for dinner, or whether to lease or buy, we're talking about
market regulation that affects the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of
people one way or another. You cannot hurry that up!<BR></div>
<div><BR></div>
<div>Tim </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 8px; FONT-FAMILY:
verdana; COLOR: black; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=replyBlockquote
webmail="1">
<DIV id=wmQuoteWrapper>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: Re:
[gnso-vi-feb10] REVISED Proposal-support poll -- consensus<BR>around
"atoms"<BR>From: "Mike O'Connor" <<a
href="mailto://mike@xxxxxxxxxx";>mike@xxxxxxxxxx</a>><BR>Date: Sun, June 13,
2010 8:18 am<BR>To: <a
href="mailto://Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx";>Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx</a><BR><BR><BR><BR>my
first reply to Roberto's note was composed in a hurry as i was heading down
the road towards a Saturday-evening off the 'net -- i didn't want to leave the
impression that the two of us were battling over the poll... now that i am not
in "panic mode" let me respond to what i think is Roberto's primary point --
the need to focus on finding some small pieces of middle ground -- the "atoms"
he talks about. i completely agree with Roberto on that point. the poll is just
to find out a) where people are and b) where there is "wiggle room."
<BR><BR>i'm also with Roberto in that we seem to be focusing on the proposal
beauty contest rather than identifying "atoms" of agreement. on reflection, it
may be that we polled on the wrong dimension -- that we should have polled on
the headings in Kathy's table, rather than the proposals. those headings are
the "atoms" and understanding how people feel about them is probably the path
to consensus. by polling on the proposals we may have amplified the
beauty-contest and i also share Roberto's view that there's less flexibility in
people's positions than i had hoped. <BR><BR>part of this hardening of
positions may be caused by the recent conversation which implied that we might
draft a report which contains several options, with a level of support for
each. this might be viewed as a way to throw the choice to the Council (which
is *not* consensus-based) and that this poll will be used to describe support
for those options. on reflection i realize that i may have introduced this
confusion into the conversation, so let me remove it. we will only submit a
report WHEN we find consensus (or have decided that we can't). until then, we
update the community on our progress and continue our work. if we get to
consensus in time for gTLD-rollout, great. otherwise, the rollout proceeds
without our input. i asked Margie for details on how to generate an Interim
Report so that we could avoid schedule-slip IF we have a consensus position to
put forward, NOT to open the door to a multi-option report that throws the
choice to the Council.<BR><BR>the approach we've been following is that the WG
goes through the PDP cycle twice... <BR><BR>-- the first time (this time) we
urgently try to find things we can agree on in time to moderate the Board/DAG
baseline in time to meet the gTLD rollout schedule. if we can't find consensus
around any of those things then we won't forward a report and we'll move on to
the second time through the PDP process. we are rapidly coming to the end of
the runway for this iteration -- basically, if we can't arrive at consensus on
some "atoms" during Brussels, we'll be done. if we do arrive at an agreement in
Brussels, we're still on track to very quickly publish an Interim Report with
those items and complete the first PDP cycle.<BR><BR>-- the second time through
the process we do the deeper analysis of economic impact, harms, regulatory
approaches and so forth that our charter calls for and then see if we can come
to a consensus around those larger issues. it would be great if we could get
through that broader work before the new gTLD train leaves the station but the
odds are that we won't, since that process is likely to take the standard 12-15
months of a "normal" PDP and might even run a little longer given the
complexity of the research that we need to do.<BR><BR>at any rate, the pressure
is still on. we are not at consensus yet and we need to get there quickly if we
are to influence the Applicant Guidebook. back to work!
:-)<BR><BR>mikey<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>On Jun 12, 2010, at 4:36 PM, Roberto
Gaetano wrote:<BR><BR>> <BR>> Mikey,<BR>> <BR>>> as your
co-chair and scribe, i don't have any objection to <BR>>> others taking
the poll. but it would make my life a lot <BR>>> easier if they indicated
that they are not WG members when <BR>>> they fill out their entry so i
can tell who is who when i <BR>>> summarize the poll. i admit, i worry a
little bit about <BR>>> craziness and pranks, but i'm willing to wait and
cross that <BR>>> bridge if we come to it.<BR>>> <BR>>>
Roberto? you have any thoughts either way on this?<BR>> <BR>> I confess
that I am seriously puzzled by the exchanges I see in the last<BR>> couple
of days wrt the poll.<BR>> Personally, I have no objections whatsoever to
"non-members" taking the<BR>> poll, for two reasons, and with a
caveat.<BR>> The first reason, is that you cannot prevent it. Although this
might not<BR>> seem a good reason per se, it simply means that I see no
point in putting an<BR>> additional burden in terms of control, count,
identity check, aso. for<BR>> something that is not a vote, but a
poll.<BR>> The second one, maybe more substantial, is that I do believe that
there are<BR>> people who did not subscribe to the WG because they knew that
they could not<BR>> afford the commitment of tons of emails, need for quick
responses to issues,<BR>> two weekly teleconferences (maybe at impossible
hours from their time<BR>> zones), but that would like to express an opinion
anyway. And I believe that<BR>> their opinion is useful to the co-chairs in
assessing the situation.<BR>> The caveat is, surprise surprise, the same one
that Mikey has expressed: a<BR>> way to identify them as "external
contributors" to the poll, not WG members.<BR>> Anyway, the reactions I have
read, like the reasons for not allowing<BR>> external folks to participate
to the poll (as they could "stuff the ballot<BR>> box") is IMHO
disproportionate. And the reason is that this is not a "ballot<BR>> box",
but a "poll". When the co-chairs will count the preferences, assuming<BR>>
that we will do it in a formal way, it will not be with the spirit of<BR>>
declaring a "winner", not even a "majority candidate" that will be in a
sort<BR>> of pole position for a compromise solution. Nothing at all of
this. I cannot<BR>> speak for my colleague co-chair, but personally what I
was looking for was<BR>> not the first choice of you folks, which I probably
could have easily<BR>> guessed without having to go through a poll, but
which are the grey areas<BR>> (actually, the "yellow" areas). What are the
possibilities to create a<BR>> common ground, even limited.<BR>> <BR>>
What I see, is a dicomforting scenario. What is upsetting to me is not
so<BR>> much the clear cut in two opposite camps (those who favour RACK+ are
against<BR>> JN+2 or FreeTrade, and viceversa), but other things. For most,
actually<BR>> close to all, members the opinions on the highest ranking
proposals are<BR>> either green or red, with very little yellow margin. But
that was<BR>> predictable. What is upsetting is that members of the WG are
starting<BR>> saying: "But xyz did not vote, did he have the chance to vote,
it would have<BR>> been +1 for proposal abc". Folks, for the nth time, this
is not a "vote". I<BR>> do not care if proposal P1 or P2 is liked by a few
people more than proposal<BR>> P3 or P4. What I care is what are the
elements of proposals P1, P2, P3 or P4<BR>> that are not acceptable to some,
in order to go to a next phase in which we<BR>> can see what we can do to
smoothen some aspects of the proposals in order to<BR>> reduce the concern
and make them consider less "risky".<BR>> But I see that in spite of the
work done so far, we are still in<BR>> beauty-contest mode. We are not here,
to repeat a metaphore used a few weeks<BR>> ago, to choose the best
molecule, but to break the molecules into atoms,<BR>> pick the atoms that
are acceptable (or at least not violently opposed), and<BR>> build with them
the molecule of consensus.<BR>> To explain better the way I see things, let
me make an example.<BR>> One question is not whether we should have or not
VI, but under what<BR>> circumstances, and with which safeguards, the
opponents of VI would feel<BR>> sufficiently protected from the risks they
see in VI to accept a limited<BR>> test. Another question is not whether
small TLDs should be obliged to have<BR>> ICANN accredited Registrars or
not, but rather under which circumstances<BR>> could an exception be made,
and what are the conditions and risks that we<BR>> need to take into account
before defining which is the extent of the<BR>> exception.<BR>> Analysing
the result of the poll so far, I see that among the people who<BR>> state
they cannot live with the status quo (Board Motion and/or DAGv4) we<BR>>
have friends of proposal abc and foes of proposal xyz, and friends of<BR>>
proposal xyz and foes of proposal abc. Knowing that if we cannot come to
a<BR>> consensus, you will not get the proposal you like, but the status quo
you<BR>> don't like, I count on you to come together and forget about your
favourite<BR>> proposal, and help crafting a "new thing" (a "bossa nova", as
the Brazilians<BR>> would say) that you and others can live with. To replace
the status quo you<BR>> cannot live with.<BR>> <BR>> It is too late to
get something done in this direction before Brussels. But<BR>> I count very
much on the F2F in Brussels (meeting on Saturday and bar<BR>> anytime) to
narrow the gap we have as of today.<BR>> <BR>> Cheers,<BR>>
Roberto<BR><BR>- - - - - - - - -<BR>phone 651-647-6109 <BR>fax 866-280-2356
<BR>web <a href="http://www.haven2.com";>www.haven2.com</a><BR>handle OConnorStP
(ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
etc.)<BR><BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|