Re: [ga] THIS FRIDAY end the nomination's time...

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 2 December 1999, Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com> wrote:


>On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Mark C. Langston wrote:
>>[snip]
>> Shall we assume that those of us not in the elite club of folks that are
>> privy to the e-mails as they come in will have no idea who got nominated
>> or not until well after the close of the nomination period, due to this?
>
>	The only folks privy to the e-mails as they come in are the folks
>at AFNIC who are receiving them.  My understanding is that somebody at
>AFNIC will be keeping an eye on the process tomorrow through 9 pm (France
>time).

Thank you, Jon.  You see, this is exactly the kind of thing that should
be documented.  This coupled with your statement below indicates that
we cannot expect any acceptance updates over the weekend -- at least, we
can't be sure the website's list of acceptances is complete until after
the beginning of the French business day on Monday.

Really, I don't think it's too much to ask that this sort of thing
find its way into the documented procedures.  What seems trivial at one
time may become crucial at another;  why not err on the side of caution 
and document it anyway?  

It may seem that I overreact to this sort of thing, but please understand
my position:  Proper, transparent, agreed-upon, coherent, self-consistent
procedure is the entire basis for an organization such as this.  Fail to
provide it, and you'll have problems at every turn.  I strongly believe
this, and I've seen it proved true many times.  Look at the WTO as just
one example.  One of the main concerns the protesters have with the WTO
is that it's an unelected body that meets behind closed doors and doesn't
document their procedures.  Sound familiar?

I can work within almost any ruleset, as long as that ruleset meets the
following criteria:

1)  It's transparent -- I am capable of examining all aspects of it; nothing
      about it is hidden from me.

2)  It's coherent -- the entire body of rules clearly lays out a course of
      action; the rules to not confuse;  the rules eliminate confusion.

3)  It's self-consistent -- the rules do not contradict one another; one
      rule does not bring into question another rule's appropriateness.

4)  It's agreed-upon -- everyone who claims to abide by and be bound by
      the ruleset, is.  Furthermore, the ruleset has been arrived at by
      the participants and agreed to.  (I personally feel #1,2, and 3
      are not achievable without this, as they require oversight.  This
      criterion provides it.)

So far, I have not seen a set of procedures within ICANN that meet any
of these four criteria, together or in isolation.

And I'll re-assert my position:  I don't think this is an unreasonable
expectation for the rules and procedures that govern a body such as ICANN.

Don't get me wrong;  It's entirely possible that I may not *like* a ruleset
that meets those 4 criteria.  But that's a different matter altogether from
expecting the ruleset to meet those criteria.  And, even if I didn't 
particularly like a ruleset that meets those criteria, I'd still be
able to work within that ruleset with confidence.

I'd love it if we could get to that point.

>
>	[Warning: under the rules the NC announced, the *nomination*
>period closes tomorrow at *6* pm CET, 5 pm UTC.  Nominated candidates have
>until 9 pm CET to accept.]


-- 
Mark C. Langston
mark@bitshift.org
Systems Admin
San Jose, CA