[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [discuss] DNSO Glitches and process: A report from the DNSO front.
- To: Richard Lindsay <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [discuss] DNSO Glitches and process: A report from the DNSO front.
- From: "Cthulhu's Little Helper" <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 20:21:33 -0700
- cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <email@example.com>, Joop Teernstra <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "William X. Walsh" <email@example.com>, d3nnis <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Jonathan Zittrain <email@example.com>, Antony Van Couvering <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Donald Telage <email@example.com>, Einar Stefferud <Stef@nma.com>, Dan Steinberg <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Amthony Rutkowski <email@example.com>, Ed Gerck <firstname.lastname@example.org>, A Gehring <email@example.com>, Roberto Gaetano <Roberto.Gaetano@etsi.fr>, "Farber@Cis. Upenn. Edu" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Karl Auerbach <karl@CAVEBEAR.COM>, Eva Frolich <email@example.com>, "J. William \"Bill\" Semich" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Gordon Cook <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, Esther Dyson (Esther Dyson) <"edyson"@edventure.com>, Becky Burr <email@example.com>
- In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 30 Jun 1999 10:57:35 +0900." <3779798F.C87D8259@interq.ad.jp>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
On 30 June 1999, Richard Lindsay <email@example.com> wrote:
>A couple comments, cc'd to all you addressed this to.
>> on process: Results NIL.
>You chose an interesting term to describe the process, "herd."
>I think the results you experienced show just how difficult it is
>to really have sound bottom up consensus building. I do not
>believe that it is impossible, but it is certainly not easy.
>I think it is, however, impossible to "force" consensus. Perhaps
>this is a philosophical point of view.
Translation: "I agree with Roeland here."
>> Process issues regarding polling/voting procedures: rejected or ignored.
>> Attempts to build process document online: rejected or ignored.
>I think this is one reason that forming fairly small Working Groups,
>tasked with coming up with a single document (such as an RFC) is
>not a bad idea. We are dealing with a Catch 22 situation,
>can't form working groups without a working group about forming
Translation: "We don't need process, can't we just get on with it?"
>> Conclusion: We have yet another hi-jacking in motion.
>Well, if it is a hijacking, no one is on the plane (except for
>the handful of participants engaged in the current discussion.)
>So most of the "passengers" are safe and sound, and even if
>the plane goes down,... very few casualties. (I mentioned
>this during the NC meeting, I am not good with analogies...
>this is probably another poor choice of words...)
Translation: "It won't hurt anyone if we just get on with it. Let
us make decisions and recommendations without a framework or
consensus or adequate buy-in. After all, this is just a little
game we're playing. It doesn't have any real impact."
>> We have less than a month until the Santiago ICANN meeting. The DNSO
>> train is departing, on track SOLA, for the WIPO station. I don't intend
>> to be on it.
>It would be a shame if you were to claim total failure because a
>group of well meaning, but perhaps not 100% experienced individuals
>did not know "Robert's Rules." I am kind of getting tired of this
>Robert guy...:-) The ICANN "process" is all about internationalization of
>all these issues. From what I know (and I already admit to
>an "embarrassing lack of knowledge") these rules are extremely
>ethno-centric. I have not heard of their practice in Japan, or
>elsewhere in Asia.
Translation: "Although we could have adopted any system of rules to
govern our body, we chose RR. I'll call them ethno-centric, and then
it'll be okay if we disregard them."
>Having said that, well, there is probably no other alternative,
>so I will go out and read up on Robert's Rules... Shouldn't be
>too difficult. If I am too dense to figure them out, my constituency
>will replace me with someone who can. But I am not worried about
>this, it is a very small problem.
Translation: "Those frameworks for fairness and order are such a nuisance.
But I'll make some feeble gesture towards them, in an effort to quiet those
who think that these meetings should have some guidelines."
>This is a young organization, and we are learning as we grow.
>There is no reason to assume because we are still crawling that
>we will never be able to run. (more bad analogies)
Translation: "Leave us alone while we achieve our goals. We may look
inept, but in effect, we're getting what we want while spoonfeeding
pablum to those who would question us."
Thanks Richard. I was doing my best to keep an open mind about all of
this. You've just convinced me that there really is a hidden agenda here.
You'd think that after all that's passed, one of you would realize that
patting us on the head and shooing us on our way won't make us shut up!
I am perfectly willing to work within any self-consistent set of rules
your august body selects and actually makes an effort to obey. I think
you'll find that once that happens, there may actually be some progress
made. But as long as we need a playbook, a scorecard, and a self-updating
hyperlinked reference to rules Bill Cosby would find a bit too wiggly to
sell, progress may be difficult. You see, people don't want to play when
you keep changing the rules so you can win.
Now I remember why I dislike politics so much. Dishonesty sickens me.
Mark C. Langston Let your voice be heard:
Systems Admin http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org