Re: [ga] [fwd] Steering Group for icannatlarge.com. (from: roessler@does-not-exist.org)

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Thomas Roessler wrote:

[Note: This is Thomas' stating his personal opinion, and not the
chair of the GA speaking in that capacity.]

On 2002-02-28 11:50:07 -0800, William S. Lovell wrote:

>   So where did this Steering Group come from?

I suggested it, and Joop accepted it, with minor modifications.  I
then set up the mailing list and web archive.

Thomas:

Now myself I would have posted an "Invitation to Join Steering
Group" and solicited names of people willing to serve, out of
which the members would then select some particular number.
However, it is quite obvious that Mr. Roessler had his heart in
the right place -- something was done!

> >   Especially since three of its "members"
> have evidently not even
> >   registered for membership in ICANN-AT-LARGE!  (Aizu,
> Hofmann,
> >   and Wong). Talk about a setup! There are grave political
> >   mistakes being made here already, which should have been
> thought
> >   through.
We do now have Ms. Hofmann as a member of icannatlarge.  :-)

Most of your criticism is (generally) well-taken, but, at this point
of time, besides the point.

Right now, a lot of "minor" "implementation" details on the site can
quite well have an influence on what happens. Think about what the
options are: Not doing anything is certainly _not_ an option.

Right on.
> Following the (good!) process you describe in your
> posting requires
> a certain number of members to sign up, which means that some time
> will go by.
So what if you now posted an "Invitation to Join Steering
Group?"  This is a notion that can self-destruct if nobody
shows up, so there should be no harm done even if it does
not work.  (Except, of course, the problem of finding some
other process that does work!)  As for myself, I've turned
down a lot of ICANN/DNSO/GA positions, but the chance
to try to get something off on the right foot for once, before
all the damage is done, is too much to pass up, and for that
reason if anyone thought I could help, I would work on that
Steering Group (or maybe now under a different name).

Until then, you have very few choices, when it comes to
implementation decisions which may turn out to be crucial (in
particular when there is no clear input from the relevant community,
yet): Either, the individual in charge of the implementation is
going to make lonely decisions. Possibly after having received
feed-back behind the scenes, from those he bothers to ask, possibly
after having listened to some mailing lists or web forums.  But,
ultimately, he's making decisions of his own, and he's the only one
in charge of important details.

Or, there is some group of (hopefully) respected individuals who
give that feed-back in a publicly visible way, and a commitment of
the implementor to follow the advice of that group.

Or get "canned" and have a new webmaster and all that put in.
> I very much prefer the second option over the first
> one, which is
> why I worked to implement it.  (I do, in particular, prefer that
> second option when we are talking about the single effort which
> seems to be getting most of the attention.  Because, in this case,
> the third option (namely, to let the effort fail) would cause
> considerable harm, and should not be choosen.)
Yes, indeed.
>          
> This steering group is a quick stop-gap measure.
And could serve a useful function thereby. Hamid Karzai
it may be, but it could still decide to implement a first stage
of getting membership involvement in organizational decisions,
whether by the poll-type selection of a permanent Steering
Group as I have suggested or by some other mechanism.
> (OK, maybe we should have called it something else,
> but I had to
> think about a quick name for that mailing list.  atlarge-cabal
> didn't sound right, either.)
Essential to this whole process is the maintenance of one's sense
of humor, and I've got to tell you -- that was the funniest thing I've
read all day!!
> Please look at it that way, and please work to make
> it unnecessary
> by joining the membership, and helping it to gain momentum.  In
> particular, I'd like to ask you to put your comment about the
> "statements" policy (which, BTW, was the implementor's decision)
> into one of the forums.
Thanks very much, and I will try to write something tonight. I have
also printed out the entire 37 pages of the "ICANN2" document,
and one funny thing about it is that I can find no name of an author
attached to it! (Other than, of course, that it says "President's"
on
it.)  On that document I plan a thorough response/reaction, and
that dissertation I would hope to see arrive on the Statements pages.

Bill Lovell

>  
> --
> Thomas Roessler                      
>
> http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html