Re: [discuss] DNSO Glitches and process: A report from the DNSO front.

[Javier <javier@aui.es>]

Mark,

Excellent analysis of the situation.

The compromise of group 1 with group 2, in the pNC, has been to create a
committe that has to come out, within three weeks, with procedures for the
operation of working groups. As soon as those procedures are in place, the
new working groups will comply with the procedures determined by the
committee. Once the committee reports, the GA will have to be consulted
before the procedures are finally approved, as with anything else that
comes out of a working group.

This will, of course, not make everybody happy, and the criticism (some of
it in the form of personal insult) will continue in this list, but what is
at this point very clear is that anybody who wants to participate
constructively in the process can do it by either participating in the GA
or in the working groups.

Javier


At 08:29 30/06/99 -0700, Cthulhu's Little Helper wrote:
>
>On 30 June 1999, Richard Lindsay <richard@interq.ad.jp> wrote:
>
>
>>Mark,
>>
>>If I have ever met you, it escapes my memory.  Therefore, I
>>guess this is your way of saying "hello, nice to meet you..."
>
>No.  However, I was addressing your points, and not you, directly.
>My greetings are usually a bit friendlier than that. 
>
>>
>>Cthulhu's Little Helper wrote:
>>> Translation:  "I agree with Roeland here."
>>
>>As this is an introduction, I would like to request that you
>>not attempt to "translate" any of my comments.  If you want
>>me to post in Japanese, than feel free to translate...  If I
>>am vague, by all means ask for clarification.
>
>
>I apologize.  That was a heavyhanded and childish tactic for me to
>use.  It was only meant to express how I interpreted your statements,
>and how very upset they made me.
>
>However, if you feel Japanese would suit you better, just let me know
>whether you'd prefer JIS, S-JIS, or EUC, and I'll do my best to
>struggle through it.
>
>[...snip!]
>
>>
>>The only possible constructive comment I can add, is that if you 
>>are looking for consensus (which is what I interpreted part of
>>Roeland's post to be about) jumping on someone who you think is
>>disagreeing with a point, attempting to change their words to suit
>>your point of view, and in a round about way, calling them dishonest
>>will not result in any form of consensus.
>
>Richard, I wasn't changing your words to suit my view.  I was
>attempting to demonstrate how your words may easily be interpreted.
>If you feel that this interpretation is wrong, then I would ask that
>you either rephrase what you said so that the interpretation isn't
>possible, or that you support those statements with reasons acceptable
>to all.  My methods may be juvenile at times, but my point stands.
>
>>
>>By the way, I really don't understand the reference to Bill Cosby...
>>
>
>Bad attempt at an obscure gelatin reference, and people's desire to
>occasionally attempt to nail it to flat vertical surfaces. ;)
>
>Anyway, back to consensus.
>
>I was thinking last night after I wrote this, and this morning as
>well.  Consensus seems to be the major stumbling block for all of us
>at this point.  One the one claw, we have a group of people (many of
>whom currently sit on the pDNC) who are primarily focussed on the
>deadlines they must meet, and thus want to move ahead.
>
>On the other claw, we've got a group of people who feel that nothing
>can move forward until there are a set of accepted procedures within
>which to work.
>
>On the third claw, we've got a group of people who feel the first
>group and others have excluded and disenfranchised them.
>
>The problem?  No consensus.  Group 1 doesn't share the views of groups
>2 or 3.  Group 2 doesn't grok Group 1's points, and group 3 doesn't
>acknowledge the validity of group 1 to a large extent.
>
>(pardon me if these characterizations are not completely accurate.
>Let's work with them for the sake of argument.  The main point is not
>these characterizations, but what follows.)
>
>So, what can we do:
>
>I think we could all benefit if we take a deep breath, step back, and
>spend a minute acknowledging each others points here and there.
>
>(what follows is the main point.  Unfortunately, it's tainted by my
>particular position, and may seem unduly harsh with respect to the
>pDNC.  Please feel free to rationally offer alternatives.)
>
>The pDNC should state publically that they recognize the absence of
>certain constituencies and their lack of representation, and that any
>work they do will be conducted with this in mind.  Some said as much
>in the 6/25 meeting.  It'd be nice to see it in writing.
>
>Furthermore, the pDNC should publically acknowledge the need for order
>and structure in their meetings, and in their WG's.  They should make
>a visible effort to adopt and abide by a set of procedures, processes,
>and rules that will govern how they conduct their business.
>
>Now.  The procedural camp (group 2) needs to acknowledge that the pDNC
>is working under tight deadlines that they have little control over.
>It would behoove everyone if groups 1 and 2 could sit down and decide
>on a set of procedures and processes.  Roeland has been visibly trying
>to do this, but so far it's been pretty much a one-man act.  If the
>pDNC would agree to work towards this goal for a period of X days (a
>week sounds fair), then the issue would go away, assuming something
>can be agreed upon, and everyone works within the framework that's
>built.
>
>Group 3...well, group 3 isn't easy at all.  However, while I was
>thinking about all of this, it occurred to me that the main issue at
>this moment isn't representation.  Don't get me wrong, that's a VERY
>important point, and one that will continue to be pushed until it is
>realized.  But right now, what seems to breed the most discontent
>between groups 1 and 3 is that group 1 keeps insisting that group 3
>has no place in the organization, or that said place is already
>subsumed by the GA or another constituency.  Group 3 keeps chafing at
>this.  Perhaps if Group 1 were to publically recognize group 3, things
>may be easier.  Now, I'm not suggesting that the pDNC come out and
>accept the IDNO.  I'm just saying that some form of public statement
>by group 1 that addresses this missing piece of the representative
>puzzle may help.  In essence, some nod towards the lack of adequate
>representation, as I mentioned above while discussing gorup 1.
>
>And the members of group 3 should perhaps refrain from being so
>nonproductively voiciferous about the issue that it impedes all
>progress and taints the effort they're making.  And if any finger's
>being pointed here, it's as much at myself as at anyone, so please
>don't read anything into that which isn't there.  Right now, things
>are hostile to a point that it's harming both camps.  This can't be
>good for any of us, and most certainly isn't good for the various
>interests and entities many represent.
>
>In short, I think perhaps we need to stow our egos, shut our mouths,
>realize that we all just may have a valid point or three, and see how
>much work we can get done with all this in mind.  Because our current
>method, with everyone running about, believing that their vision is
>the correct one, isn't buying us much.  If we can acknowledge that we
>all have different views on certain issues, and see how we can work
>together somewhere between those views, maybe we can make some
>headway.
>
>-- 
>Mark C. Langston				Let your voice be heard:
>mark@bitshift.org				     http://www.idno.org
>Systems Admin					    http://www.icann.org
>San Jose, CA					     http://www.dnso.org
>