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

[Richard Lindsay <richard@interq.ad.jp>]

Roeland,

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.
 
> 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...  

[snip]

> 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...)

> Issues:
> 
> Regardless of the position taken or reached, consensus can not be
> achieved by bludgeoning. Garnering consensus is a requirement of the
> White Paper. Consensus is only achieved by a process which is agreed to
> by all. Dissent has already been voiced WRT the lack of process
> (including an embarrassing lack of knowlege about Robert's Rules)
> exhibited in the 25Jun99 NC meeting. Any work, on ANY working group, is
> irrelevant without an acceptance process and should be disregarded until
> such a process is in place. While it is perfectly possible to create
> such a process in less than a week, using well understood procedures,
> the leadership refuses to do so.
> 
> 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.

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.

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)

Regards,
Richard  
--
_/_/_/interQ Incorporated
_/_/_/System Division
_/_/_/Director and General Manager
_/_/_/Richard A. S. Lindsay