Re: [ga] Time to get organized

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Joanna and all assembly members,

  I finally got a response back from my staff on this interesting
suggestion
from Joanna.  (See more below Joanna's comments)

Joanna Lane wrote:

> FYI, forwarded from the ga-rules list.
> ----------
> From: Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>
> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 14:17:54 -0400
> To: organizing committee
> Cc: <ga-rules@dnso.org>
> Subject: Organizing committee
>
> Organizing Committee - Agenda and Timelines
>
> Large organizations involved in creative work set seasonal deadlines for
> accepting proposals from independent parties. These rounds determine the
> allocation of resources, technical and administrative support and more or
> less guarantee a constant supply of new work with high production values.

  In the brick and mortar world this is largely true.  But not so in the
Ecommerce and Internet related business.  In internet time, "Seasonal" 
deadlines are not usually adequate, if ever.  In fact deadlines of 
any kind are usually, YESTERDAY.

>
>
> Without submission rounds, life is a free for all, with decision makers
> never knowing when something substantive will be presented, if ever.

  We don't find this to be completely accurate.  In the ecommerce and
Internet world or spheres of influence and decision making process, 
decision makers, such as those within our organization and others 
that we regularly work with and those also involved with funding 
aspects don't have the luxury of always knowing when some issue 
or prospective business opportunity is going to present itself.
This has also been true in the software development industry
for some 20+ years that I personally, and many members of my staff
are familiar with.

> The
> market is known for its veracious appetite, but not for its ability to
> discriminate between quantity and quality.

  We strongly disagree here.  The market has always been able to
determine quality and discriminate quantity to quality.  We are 
not as sure as to your meaning of this comment as it relates 
to anything that the DNSO GA is currently involved with 
presently.  Did you possibly have some situation or issue 
to which you determined was catalyst for this particular
comment Joanna?  If so, I am sure it would be of some 
value to better evaluate your comment here more clearly.

> This situation creates a very
> real temptation to approve mediocre, ill-considered work, provided that an
> established name is attached to it.

  This does sometimes occur to be sure, but the market place almost
without exception is able to determine when and if such a established
name has or is encouraging and/or is approving a mediocre and/or
ill-considered work.  Take for example the aircraft industry as 
a long term example. Or more recently, the automotive Tire 
industry (Both brick and mortar industries BTW).

> The reality is that restrictive
> practices are the lowest short-term risk.

  We believe that defining how restrictive and what restrictions are at
the crux or the accuracy of this declaration.  To say so out of hand, in
this fashion leaves much to be desired and even more to be concerned
about.

>
>
> To my way of thinking, that is not dissimilar to the current situation in
> which ICANN claims that progress is being made in the best interests of the
> general public, at the same time, acting upon initiatives to fill gaps,
> presented at the last minute by selected entities with whom they already
> have an established relationship. It's all to easy to justify shortcuts in
> the present climate.

  We tend to agree that thus far the ICANN BoD, the NC and some of the
DNSO constituencies seem to be behaving in the manner in which you
suggest here.  Indeed it seems all to obvious and has for some time now,
that the ICANN BoD decision practice is much different than what 
the White Paper and the MoU require.  It is our opinion that this 
has gone unchecked adequately for far too long and to a degree 
is also hampering the progress of the ICANN experiment to the 
extent of now creating an anti culture that could supplant 
ICANN all together...  This however may be a good thing as 
such conditions also, in part lead to the development of the
internet in the first place...

>
>
> One fundamental problem facing the GA is how to encourage ICANN to put large
> and small independent players on the same level field without adversely
> affecting the stability created by the big players that ICANN has come to
> rely upon.

  We believe that the "Big Players" as you put it have actually lead to
or are now leading to the lack of stability of the Internet and in
particular the DNS and IP registry systems.  We all have seen how 
the IETF for instance seems to be again embroiled in severe 
controversy with respect to process of standards development.  
We all here, or at least those of us that have around for some 
time, have seen clearly that the ICANN BoD and staff in 
particular have disincluded the stakeholder by in large in a
number of ways so as to effect a predetermined policy basis 
that may not be in the known interest of all of the 
participating stakeholders.

>
>
> It is my personal opinion that the GA cannot possibly be expected to succeed
> without a more organized set of procedures in place; procedures that would
> not be a rigid structure, but would establish a rolling agenda to ensure a
> regular flow of innovative ideas founded in solid research.

  Solid research is always a desired precursor or tool for aiding in
technical and policy related decision making.  With the rapid changes in
Internet technology such research often no longer applies by the time
the research is completed, and bad outdated policies can and do result. 
This is why we have advocated interspersing innovative and tested 
technology that is "Running Code" with older in use technology.

>
>
> The GA should be be sending out formal invitations with set deadlines for
> the submission of proposals, then select a shortlist to embrace fully and
> develop, while cutting off new submissions until the next round.

  We disagree with this approach as it is too restrictive and negates
innovation and forward thinking in process and policy development
on many issues.

> This would
> encourage diversity of input from all players, large and small, while
> creating anticipation at BoD level that something of value will be
> forthcoming from the GA on a particular issue at a specific moment in time.

  We don't believe that your conclusion logically follows your premise
here.  Small organizations would be handicapped as they do not have the
same resources as large organizations have to be compatible with larger
ones.

>
>
> Currently, a perfectly sensible proposal may be met with a negative response
> on the list, simply for reasons of being perceived as a distraction to a
> more urgent topic, leading to resentment by the author and their persistent
> drum beating on the various lists.

  We agree that this seems to be a persistent and bothersome problem
in some situations and with some issues that a few participants are
specifically strongly interested in.  But much of this attitude comes
from those individuals and their lack of ability to segment their
thinking process adequately to decimate more than a couple of different
issues that are ongoing, thereby causing them to be come confused
and disoriented, than later frustrated and venting their frustration
upon the other participants that find different issues of more interest
to them.  As a result bickering ensues and loss or focus on any
issue becomes a strong possibility...  However NO process can
adequately address this reality, only individuals can themselves...

> This can be intolerable for all parties.

  Tolerance is a learned behavior trait.  I would suggest that those
that know they have a poor tolerance level seek instruction in
correcting that condition.  Teaching it on the DNSO GA is
not a viable option.

>
> The answer is simple. Use formal submission rounds, allowing for
> resubmission at agreed times, time for the author to hone proposals off-list
> in the intervening period, and a mechanism that gives notice of issues to be
> addressed in this round in a timely fashion.

  Not so simple in our opinion.  (See comments just above).  Sure it is
sometimes a good idea to "Hone" proposals off list at times and
depending on the availability of others to do so should be practiced
where and when appropriate for that specific proposal in progress.  
However also there and times where proposals in progress, if 
indicated as such should be shared and "Honed" on the DNSO GA 
lists or sublists for more broad and diverse input.

>
>
> I witness Danny and the BoD attempting this kind of structure, using
> resolutions and referrals and deadlines attached to the quarterly meetings,
> but I don't see a positive response within the GA for any kind of formal
> working method.

  We believe that this is what the Sublists were supposed to be in part
about.

> Attempts to organize the GA, whether individually by the
> Chair/ Alt Chair, or collectively through sub-lists, or an Organizing
> Committee, is viewed as restrictive practices, limiting freedom of speech,
> to be derided and shot down in flames.

  We believe that the problem with the sublists is that they were
improperly represented to the extent that the rules were too 
restrictive to point of limiting speech to the point of making 
them somewhat ineffective in some participants opinions.

> The price that is being paid for that
> strategy, is being ignored by the decision makers and even worse, by
> default, actively encouraging the ICANN to increase the stranglehold of the
> big players whose own procedures can be relied upon to deliver the goods.

  We take the position that the "Big Players" have not, and are not,
delivering the goods as you put it.  Rather quite the contrary with for
instance new gTLD's and the dispensation of .ORG and .NET.
Other examples would be with the Registrar Contract agreements
and the UDRP.

>
> This is a far greater cost than whatever may result from a few short-term,
> self-imposed restrictions, that could transform the GA into a body that
> cannot be ignored by ICANN.

  The ICANN BoD and staff has, can and will continue to ignore
anyone, any group, any organization, any company (Especially small
companies) that are not in the same line of predetermined process and
policy positions that they currently have and have had for some time.

>
>
> The free speech advocates and loudest voices in the GA decry the sub-lists
> as being divisive.

  We believe that with the current rules and uneven enforcement of those
poor set of rules causes these decries of the sublists being divisive.

> It's worth noting that Stuart Lynn has been personally
> involved in the dialogue on the ga-roots list, something that to my
> knowledge has not occurred on the ga-full list. There is the evidence that a
> little self-organization can go a long way.

  Vint Cerf, and before Vint, Esther Dyson did on rare occasion did
participate on the DNSO GA list (See backdated DNSO GA Archives).
Stuart Lynn has not participated in any greater fashion than either
Vint or Esther had or has to date that we can determine form the
DNSO GA archives...

>
>
> What we need most in the current climate can be undertaken by an organizing
> committee appointed by the Chairs.

  An organizing committee should be elected by the DNSO GA members
and by self volunteering fellow GA members to serve in our opinion. 
They should also be PAID for their work in this capacity as well...

> It is not a policy matter requiring
> consensus. A rolling agenda set by the committee does not remove a member's
> right to submit any proposal for consideration in any form at any time,
> either to the full GA, the NC or the BoD direct, but it should be made clear
> that if a document is not submitted by a certain set date, it would be
> deferred to the next round, as the GA would then be fully committed
> elsewhere.

  This seems to be too single threaded and inefficient in our opinion.
(See comments again above in this area)

>
>
> Those who would argue against submission rounds and an organizing committee
> to flag the timeline should include with their response an answer to each of
> the following questions:-
>
> 1) What are the key issues facing the GA at this time?

  In our opinion and in order of importance the following:

1.) Motion for a vote on the .BIZ made by John Palmer.
2.) Whois data privacy issue.
3.) Dispensation of .ORG
4.) Nomination and election of NC TF representative from the GA
5.) Decisions by the GA members on recognition of Competitive/Inclusive
    (AKA Alt.roots) in a up or down vote.
6.) The DNSO GA needs to get started on acquiring it's own funding...

>
> 2) What has the GA achieved since Stockholm?

  A motion has been brought to the members on .BIZ.
  Discussions on Whois privacy have been fully vetted.
  Ongoing discussion on general position on Competitive/Inclusive
  roots and registries
  Forward movement on NC task force election of GA representative.

>
> 3) What will the GA accomplish before Uruguay and how will this be achieved?

  Unknown.  Likely the GA representative Task Force election will be
  completed, the motion on .BIZ will be decided, and the GA's
  position on the dispensation of .ORG by membership vote
will be determined.

  Personal Note:

  I must say that these issues are a poor example in terms of
what should could be accomplished before Uruguay in terms
of productivity...

>
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html