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

["Cthulhu's Little Helper" <skritch@home.com>]

On 1 July 1999, Richard Lindsay <richard@interq.ad.jp> wrote:


>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.  

Thanks.  Having just returned from watching Russia take a beating
in the Women's World Cup, I'm ready to get back to work, if
just a bit let down. :)

>
>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.


I hope so.  My most fervent wish is that everyone is able to
work together on a common goal.  We've disintegrated into
factionalization, and are stuck there, IMHO.  It's not serving
anyone at this point.

[...snip...]

>> 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.
> 

I think it will help a great deal.  I've yet to hear from Joop or
anyone else on this, but I believe that if the statement is sincere,
it will go a long way towards bridging the chasm we now face.

>> 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.
>

Agreed.  If RR is what has been accepted, then I am all for helping
the members understand and abide by them.  But the body will not 
survive another travesty like the 6/25 meeting.  It would have been
less damaging to proceed without a nod in a procedural direction.
At this point, any help would be welcome.  I'll do what I can based
on my limited experience.



>> 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

If this is true, then count me in, Bill.  I hope others will also
voice their interest in this WG so we can get this particular point
behind us.


>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.
>

At this point, anything other than recommending some form of IDNO is
going to cause massive unrest.  I hope this is clear.  It's not even
an advocacy issue anymore.  The absence of any form of representation
for this group is going to be a major sticking point.  The WG for
this should really be deciding policy for this constituency, and I'd
strongly recommend the current reps of the IDNO to head it.


>> 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.
>

Thanks...it's not often I hear that sort of thing.  I'll try not to let
it go to my head. :)

(said while the DK's play in the background, encouraging me to gore 
all of you. :)


-- 
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