Re: [wg-c] WG C Straw Pole vote

["Keith Gymer" <keith.gymer@btinternet.com>]

I too have made clear my reservations about voting in this group, and have
only reluctantly done so because Jonathan seems to think that counting
numbers is meaningful and there seemed to be a likelihood that abstention
would be presumed to indicate a lack of objections to whatever the result of
the count turned out to be.

I agree with Caroline, Tod and Marilyn in the present circumstances.

Keith
----- Original Message -----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA <mcade@att.com>
To: 'Cohen, Tod' <Tod_Cohen@mpaa.org>; 'Chicoine, Caroline'
<chicoinc@PeperMartin.com>; 'Jonathan Weinberg' <weinberg@mail.msen.com>
Cc: <wg-c@dnso.org>; <javier@auj.es>
Sent: 31 August 1999 22:30
Subject: RE: [wg-c] WG C Straw Pole vote


>
> As someone struggling to make sense of Working Group C, and not succeeding
> very well, I agree with Caroline. I earlier objected to the idea of
voting,
> however, and was sort of told that we needed to do so. So I voted on a
> couple of the items -- but not with any degree of comfort.
>
> I continue to suggest tht voting isn't "useful" in the present state of
flux
> and discussion where this group finds ourselves.
>
> Marilyn Cade
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cohen, Tod [mailto:Tod_Cohen@mpaa.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 5:08 PM
> To: 'Chicoine, Caroline'; 'Jonathan Weinberg'
> Cc: 'wg-c@dnso.org'; 'javier@auj.es'
> Subject: RE: [wg-c] WG C Straw Pole vote
>
>
> I agree completely with Caroline and recommend that we take no further
> votes.
>
> Tod Cohen
> MPAA
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chicoine, Caroline [mailto:chicoinc@PeperMartin.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 4:57 PM
> To: 'Jonathan Weinberg'
> Cc: 'wg-c@dnso.org'; 'javier@auj.es'
> Subject: RE: [wg-c] WG C Straw Pole vote
>
> I made absolutely no suggestion or request that WG C be
> abolished, so
> you are correct that there is some confusion here.
>
> I also wish to clarify my comment about taking no further
> action,
> including voting.  I did not mean to suggest that the
> discussion on the
> listserve should be stopped or postponed (as if that was
> really
> possible!). And while I see no problem documenting the
> PROCESS and
> STATEMENTS to date (whether in the form a memo or
> otherwise), the Names
> Council specifically found that the STRUCTURE and the
> COMPOSITION of WG
> C violates ICANN bylaws.  Therefore, I believe that
> continuing to "try
> and find such consensus as we can find,wherever we can find
> it" from a
> group (which includes me) to which the Names Council has
> objected makes
> no sense.  Trying to draw conclusions from votes submitted
> by such a
> group would likewise appear meaningless.  How can you say
> "[t]here would
> be nothing wrong, further, with producing a report that says
> we have
> consensus on X issues, and are presenting the competing
> arguments on Y"
> when the Names Council has objected to the underlying
> process by which
> such a report would be produced?
>
> Javier, what are your thoughts?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:weinberg@mail.msen.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 3:08 PM
> To: Chicoine, Caroline
> Cc: 'javier@aui.es'; 'wg-c@dnso.org'
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] WG C Straw Pole vote
>
>
> I think there's some confusion here.  The Names
> Council has
> decided that we're not doing our job, and has asked Working
> Group D to
> come up with ways in which Javier and I might adjust our
> structure.  The
> NC has made absolutely no suggestion, though, that we be
> abolished.
> Nor,
> for that matter, does *anyone* in Working Group D seem to
> think that, or
> that our membership should be restricted.  To the extent
> that WG-D comes
> up with proposals that will allow us more efficiently to do
> our job,
> that's a good thing -- in any event, we're still in
> business.[*]
>
> I think Javier's suggestion that we work on an
> options memo is a
> good one.  I've suggested before, as have others, that if we
> can't reach
> consensus then such a memo will be the best we can do.  As
> Siegfried has
> urged, such a memo should not only list the different
> possible courses
> of
> action, but also explain the arguments set forward in favor
> of each.
>
> I also think, though, that while we are proceeding
> with that
> process we should continue to try and find such consensus as
> we can
> find,
> wherever we can find it.  (There would be nothing wrong,
> further, with
> producing a report that says we have consensus on X issues,
> and are
> presenting the competing arguments on Y.)  I'll post a
> separate note,
> later today, working towards that goal on "how many, how
> fast."  As for
> the straw poll votes, they are not an attempt to count heads
> and thereby
> determine the position of the group, on a "majority wins"
> basis.  Their
> results have no official status.  Rather, they're a tool we
> can use to
> try
> to figure out where we may be able to find consensus.
> There's no reason
> not to continue doing that.  Indeed, I think it would be an
> abdication
> of
> our duty if we were to sit back and twiddle our thumbs for
> two weeks,
> hoping for WG-D to come up with a magic bullet, rather than
> continuing
> to
> work.
>
> --------------
>
> [*] It would be folly, further, for the NC to abolish this
> WG or to try
> to
> replace it with some hand-picked committee.  We've had a
> hard time
> getting
> results because we're charged with making proposals
> regarding a really
> hard set of issues, on which people tend to strongly
> disagree; the only
> way to reach consensus quickly on these issues is to exclude
> one or more
> of the contending camps from the debate.  As ICANN and the
> DNSO strive
> to
> prove their legitimacy, in the face of attacks from Herndon
> and Capitol
> Hill, the *last* thing it would make sense to do would be to
> try to
> squelch raucous debate or inconvenient views.
>
> Jon
>
>
> Jonathan Weinberg
> co-chair, WG-C
> weinberg@msen.com
>
>
> On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Chicoine, Caroline wrote:
>
> > Javier, if I recall correctly, the NC passed  the
> following motion in
> > Santiago:
> >
> > "NC declares that the current structure and composition of
> WGC is
> > contrary to Article VI(b) Section 2b of ICANN bylaws in
> the sense that
> > it's not adequate to carry out the substantive work of the
> DNSO.  In
> > this regard, the NC requires WGD within two weeks to
> povide the NC
> with
> > interim measures to allow WGC chairs to restructure the
> working group
> in
> > a way that allows it to perform its functions."
> >
> > Given this mandate, I believe that no further "voting" can
> take place,
> > since the results will be the result of a WG which has
> been found not
> to
> > be in compliance with ICANN bylaws.  As a result, I am
> requesting that
> > any further action, including "voting", be put on hold
> until the
> interim
> > measures are developed.  IMHU, we all could use a two week
> break to
> step
> > back, cool off and reflect on the issues at hand.
> >
> > Please advise.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Jonathan Weinberg
> weinberg@msen.com
>