[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: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 08:29:19 -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)" <email@example.com>, Becky Burr <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 30 Jun 1999 13:17:40 +0900." <37799A64.6FC7E820@interq.ad.jp>
- Sender: email@example.com
On 30 June 1999, Richard Lindsay <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>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.
>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
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
Mark C. Langston Let your voice be heard:
Systems Admin http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org