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

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

Mark,

I agree with Javier, that your comments are very well 
thought out and on the mark.  I am cc'ing the Names
Council list as well, since I think we can get some good
input based on your comments.  Much of what you recommend
I believe is already being started, but there hasn't been
sufficient notice from the pNC.  

Since I agree with many of your comments, at least one member
of the pNC will be bringing these up.  I think they will 
be well received.

> 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.

I think we can do this.  We all know that this is the case,
but I think there are some who think the pNC will ignore this
and just charge ahead regardless - I do not think this is true.
If it will help to state this publicly, I am for it.
 
> 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.

We are working on that.  I have already posted a url for RROR,
now we have some work to do.

> 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.

As stated during the meeting, Bill Semich of the ccTLD constituency
will be the point man for the WG formation "process."  I would
suggest volunteering to help, I am sure he would appreciate that
assistance.  For other procedural issues, there is a "Committee"
to be formed about this, I don't know what kind of progress been 
made, but there should be some kind of announcement coming from
announce@dnso.org soon.

> 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.

Another possibility is, after the WG formation process has been
formalized, create a WG concerning the IDNO constituency.  This
seems reasonable to me at least, and within the bounds of the
DNSO, to recommend to ICANN to either form, or not form an IDNO
based on a pNC vote.

> 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.

I think my response to Roeland's initial post was to try to urge
this kind of sensibility.  However you have done a much more eloquent
job of stating what I tried (and failed) to do.  Thank you.

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