[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" <email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: [discuss] DNSO Glitches and process: A report from the DNSO front.
- From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 23:58:16 -0700
- Cc: "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>, "Cthulhu's Little Helper" <email@example.com>, "Jonathan Zittrain" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Antony Van Couvering" <email@example.com>, "Donald Telage" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Einar Stefferud" <Stef@nma.com>, "Dan Steinberg" <email@example.com>, "Amthony Rutkowski" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Ed Gerck" <email@example.com>, "A Gehring" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Roberto Gaetano" <Roberto.Gaetano@etsi.fr>, "Farber@Cis. Upenn. Edu" <email@example.com>, "Karl Auerbach" <karl@CAVEBEAR.COM>, "Eva Frolich" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "J. William \"Bill\" Semich" <email@example.com>, "Gordon Cook" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, "Esther Dyson" <"edyson"@edventure.com>, "Becky Burr" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Importance: Normal
- In-Reply-To: <3779798F.C87D8259@interq.ad.jp>
- Reply-To: <email@example.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of
> Richard Lindsay
> Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 6:58 PM
> A couple comments, cc'd to all you addressed this to.
> "Roeland M.J. Meyer" wrote:
> > Hello All,
> > I just spent thee days trying to herd the discussion into
> serious work
> > 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.
I have direct evidence that you are wrong on all counts.
> > 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
> working groups...
Also wrong. This group should be the process working group.
> > 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...)
If mandatory ADR or the WIPO report gets passed unmodified then there
will be a virtual blood-bath in the Internet business community. At
least with ICANN affiliated TLDs and root-zones. Those not under ICANN
will watch and chuckle.
> > 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.
I was going to answer this privately, but changed my mind. I think the
Names Council, in toto, need to hear this response. When you accepted
your NC seat you KNEW that the meetings were to follow Robert's Rules of
Order, did you not? The entire NC did, I am sure. Why did you not, at
the very least, buy a personal copy of the book. Why did you not do your
homework? This is what sickened many of us watching you blow it royal,
up there on stage, for all the world to see. It reflects very poorly on
all of us. When Randy (nothing personal, guy) becomes the
parliamentarian expert in the meeting then you guys have just shown how
much you really care. Not even enough to buy a copy of the book. To then
hear you trivialize it like this is an outrage. You should be removed
for incompetance. You are ill serving your constituency. You are not
even willing to learn to do the job you were placed there to do. You
take it too lightly. This is NOT a club meeting. This should be serious
business. Did you think you became a Mouseketeer? This isn't just
directed at you, it is directed at the ENTIRE Names Council. If you
performed your day-job with this sort of diligence, how long do you
think you would keep it?
> 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.
Wouldn't it have been better for you to read it BEFORE the meeting?
> 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)