Re: [ga] silence in RROR v. PAB

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

Mark and all,

  What you have just experienced here Mark, is a fairly common tactic
that CORE has deployed in the past, as did PAB.  Not it appears
they would like to carry it over to the DNSO and ICANN.  That shouldn't
be a surprise either, as ICANN is effectively captured by CORE anyway,
as many of us already know.

Mark C. Langston wrote:

> I said:
> >Kent said:
> >
> >> In PAB (stop insisting I didn't read the rules, Kent.  I did.  Several
> >> times.  Closely.
> >
> >Then your reading skills are woefully inadequate.
> >
> >[I should point out that the PAB charter references a separate document
> >for the voting protocol:  http://songbird.com/pab/voting.html]
>
> Then you should have pointed that out when you brought them up, Kent.
> When you initially referred to the PAB rules, you said the relevant
> bits were in Section 6 of the Charter.  you never made mention of that
> seperate document, nor does Section 6 of the PAB charter.
>
> I was working from Section 6, since that is what I understood you to
> be proposing, in toto, as workable rules.  Now you're saying that's
> not the case, and that's fine; but you should have mentioned this
> first.  This is why I was claiming the PAB rules were vague, and
> working from the definition of "rough consensus" I was: You neglected
> to point out the very specific voting procedure you kept thinking I
> was misreading.  In truth, I never read it at all, because you never
> mentioned it.
>
> >>You've already admitted publically
> >> to registering false accounts to these lists for the sole purpose of
> >> voting.
> >
> >Mark, haven't you realized this yet:  I'm really Jeff Williams :-).
>
> I take it then that you are not denying making that statement, and are
> furthermore not denying that you have subscribed dummy addresses to
> these lists as described above?
>
> You're no better than Williams, or Baptista, or any of the others you
> so love to deride, then.
>
> >> It [rough consensus] will not work.  We have proof that it will not
> >> work.  It's been tried in the WGs and has been found to be lacking.
> >
> >Here's a random quote from Jon Weinberg:
>
> Is this quote from before or after it was deemed necessary to move
> away from rough consensus and use formal voting procedure?  I haven't
> yet checked, but I've a strong hunch it's from before, and your
> 'random' sample isn't as random as you'd have us believe.
>
> >
> >  "It seems to me (I said so then, too) that we ought to be able to make
> >  progress on reaching rough consensus within this framework, and that
> >  we can (and should) do so within the context of the 6-10 consensus.
> >  I'm hopeful that that's ground on which we can move forward."
> >
> >This demonstrates that IN FACT "rough consensus" is being actively
> >pursued.  We use votes as a tool on that path.
>
> Yes, but the votes you always appear so eager to push are of the "hum"
> variety.  These don't work in contentious atmospheres.
>
> Yes yes, I know, PAB was contentious.  However, PAB was working
> towards a common goal, although there may have been quibbles over how
> to read those ends.  Much of ICANN and almost the entire DNSO are
> constantly at loggerheads, working towards opposite goals, and working
> actively against one another.  The touchy-feely "hum" method just
> won't cut it there.
>
> If for no other reason, there is no acountability with such a method.
> There very much should be accountability inherent in any method
> adopted.
>
> >*Many* people are confused about the nature of the WGs and the GA.
> They >are *not* representative, decision-making bodies.  You mention
> the case >where people were wrangling over one vote in WG-C -- indeed
> that >happened, but that is fundamentally an expression of the same
> error you >are lost in -- that single vote didn't decide anything of
> significance.
>
> No, it didn't; I agree with you.  However, that was not my point.  My
> point was that the opposing forces in these debates are so bitter that
> they are willing to quibble over one insignificant vote.  In that
> atmosphere, there's no chance that a LESS formal method will ease
> tension.  It would cause more problems than it solves.
>
> Additionally it would slow the process down.  One of the benefits of
> the "hum" process is supposed to be rapidity of progress.  If a WG has
> to go through the informal "hum", and then have it challenged, and
> then go through the more formal voting procedure every single time,
> what's the point?  The "hum" becomes nothing more than a time-suck,
> and it's wisest to simply eliminate it and get to the more accountable
> method right off the bat.
>
> >I realize that there are people who would like to see ICANN's
> >decisions made through a completely formal process, but that simply
> >isn't the political reality.
>
> Perhaps not at the NC level or higher; but right now, that's how the
> decisions are being made among WG members, and it's working.  THAT is
> the political reality at this particular level.
>
> Yes, I'd very much like to see formal procedure and accountability
> inherent in all decisions made by ICANN; yes, I'm aware that is not
> the political reality.  I also strongly feel that will ultimately be
> ICANN's downfall.  Someone will eventually have to answer for what's
> being done.  When there is no accountability, scapegoats will be
> chosen.
>
> I note that the NC still has no written documents verifying their
> legal lack of culpability for the decisions they make; I note that
> this has caused some stir among the NC members.  Perhaps they are also
> aware of this lack of accountability, and similarly feel that a
> scapegoat may become necessary?
>
> Once more, we're faced with the same old ICANN dilemma: Do we forsake
> correctness, depth and breadth of consideration, and solid procedure
> in order to buy haste?  Or should we, for once, sit down and actually
> put a structure in place before we take action?
>
> I for one am sick of the former, and would welcome the latter.  This
> is something that should have been done when ICANN was formed, or even
> before; it certainly should have occurred before substantive decisions
> were made.  Now, the only choice we have is to correct that mistake
> now, or further delay dealing with it.  Mark my words, the time WILL
> come when it will have to be dealt with, and the longer we delay, the
> more difficult it becomes.
>
> --
> Mark C. Langston
> mark@bitshift.org
> Systems Admin
> San Jose, CA
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k 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:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208