Stef's FHP response to:[ifwp] Re: Proposal for a new ORSC/DNSO project

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

Stef and all,

  Your suggestion here Stef, seems well thought out, and a good suggestion.
We (INEGroup) could support this I believe.  We would like to see more comments
on your suggestion before endorsing it however.  So I hope others will
read this suggestion and contemplate it carefully.  We would be interested
in hearing more comments on your suggestion.

Einar Stefferud wrote:

> Hello David Maher --
>
> For starters, in general, when there is a will, there is a way.
> If there is no will, there is no way.
> And, we have this choice of will!
>
> The operative word is CHOICE!
>
> I agree that if we cannot choose to find a way to agree on a fair
> hearing panel, then we have to admit that we cannot solve our own
> problems, and we should appeal to some external authority to decise
> these things for us.
>
> I refuse to give up and hand the keys to my future and the future of
> the net and DNS over to some as yet unproven "higher" authority just
> because I don't right now have an uncontestable answer to your
> question.  Cearly anything I might propose is properly subject to
> critical evaluation and modification.  But I will give it a try.
>
> One reason I do not have an answer is that I do not presume to invent
> something that everyone will agree to right off the top of my head,
> and further, it is not my responsibility to do all the thinking for
> everyone here, so I will instead appeal to the community to at least
> find a way to select a fair hearing panel for the purpose of:
>
>         "Determining the facts and proposing resolutons for
>          the outstanding conflicts in the DNS "communnity".
>
> One way to do this is for each conflicting constituency to pick one
> panel member, and let the selected members either pick one of the
> panel's members to serve as Chair if the number of members is odd, or
> pick an outside person if the number is even.
>
> Then, the Chair only votes when the others vote a tie.
>
> I will note that this is no wild eyed new invention, as it is quite
> standard for most Conflict Resolution Systems.  I think the legal
> profession refers to this as an "ADR".  Often this is done with each
> of two parties picking one member each and those two then picking a
> third.  I believe this is an ancient and well polished procedure and
> process.
>
> Do we need to invent something else?
> Do we want to resolve the conflicts, or not.
> If we do not want resolution, lets just get back to fighting.
>
> Now, the only reason I can think of for our DNS community not having
> done this sooner, is that too many conflicting parties have believed
> that they could win all the marbles if they would just bear down and
> knock off all their opponents.  And as long as any party really
> believes that this is their best option, they will fight on and on and
> on.
>
> Note they only need to believe.  They need not be right.
>
> At this point, it is clear to me, and hopefully to you and others,
> that no one is going to win the DNS zero-sum game.  Actually this has
> always been true, but we have to believe it...
>
> So let's stop the fighting and find a way to resolve things with what
> I am calling a DNS Fair Hearing Panel, which will take statements,
> examine records, and fairly determine the facts, and propose a fair
> resolution to the conflicts for adoption by the community.  The job of
> the panel is to satisfy the community sense of fairness.
>
> We might even ask ICANN for help in setting up our Fair Hearing Panel,
> though ICANN has so far been hostile to the very idea of such panels.
>
> On the other hand, you were there in Monterey when DNSO.ORG "hummed"
> unanimous consensus for adopting Fair Hearing Panels for the very
> purpose I am proposing here, and we have always had support for it
> from ORSC.  That makes two contending camps.  Do we have a third?
>
> If our mailing lists had such panels, perhaps our lists could somehow
> come to some fair conclusions, but in fact, there is no mailing list
> goal for this IFWP list (or any other of the DNS issue lists) to come
> to a resolution so of course, they never do.
>
> Well, there is one excpetion that I know of, and that is the ORSC
> <domain-policy@open-rsc.org> list, where our participants, with few
> execptions, were mainly interested in coming to terms with each other,
> and so we did.  Those who could not accept the consensus conclusions
> generally gave up and went away.  Some stuck around and tried to kill
> the discussions, but in general we managed to work around their
> disruptive behavior to find our own consensus results.  In so doing,
> ORSC only acted to restrict the participation of people who clearly
> demonstrated that they were primarily trying to stop us from working
> on our chosen projects and goals.
>
> Now, ORSC does not claim to have all the answers for the whole DNS or
> Internet community, but we do claim to have tried really hard to find
> the broadest possible consensus for a non-zero-sum situation.  One of
> the things we agreed upon a long time ago is that our DNS community
> very badly needs some Fair Hearing Panels to take testimony, examine
> records, and fairly find the facts, in order to reduce the conflicts
> that prevent finding consensus agreements.
>
> So, I propose that our DNSO Fair Hearing Panel do its work via EMail,
> with an open subsctiption mailing list for the submission of all
> statements and documents, with a WEB archive with open public access
> to all submitted information, but restricted to submissions by parties
> to the conflicts under panel review.
>
> In the DNS community, we all know how to work via EMail, so we should
> not require expensive face-to-face meetings all around the world, as
> long as everything is accessable to everyone, all the subjmitted
> information will be openly available.  The Fiar Panel Will be
> responsible for setting policies for control of submission
> permissions.  The Panel should not be subjected to unreasonable floods
> of harassing mail, but they must be required to explain in public
> their policies for accepting testimony, and for obtaining acnwers to
> questions raised by the panel.
>
> I believe it is now worth a try to get us out of these "Balkan DNS
> States of Cyberspace".  If you agree with me, lets form a committee of
> two to find more people who want to participate.
>
>                 This is called "Start Where You Stand!"
>
> Just start doing something and work on building a solution.  So, lets
> find some way to proceed to select one panel member for each side of
> the conflict, and see where that will take us. People who are not
> interested in participating are welcome to ignore us, and others are
> welcome to offer constructive criticism and helpful suggestions, or to
> passively observe.
>
> Perhaps our first step should be to set up a new list for this work.
>
> None of the alternatives are acceptable, so what do we have to lose?
> There is no reason why we should disrupt other lists that are actively
> pursuing other topics.
>
> Cheers...\Stef
>
> PS: One more thing...  If we want this to be done in a properly
>     professional way, I believe we should find ways to compensate our
>     panel members for their time and fund their travel expenses.
>     To this end, I think we should seek contributions.  One of the
>     most sincere forms of support is to receive real supporting funds...\s
>
> >From your message Thu, 03 Dec 1998 14:54:05 -0600:
> }
> }Stef:
> }I applaud your attempt to cut thru the Balkan mess, but I am puzzled as to
> }how the various principalities can agree on the composition of a Fair
> }Hearing Panel. In a sense, all the efforts of the past two or three years
> }has been to get people to agree on a system of trusted representatives who
> }could decide what to do about the DNS. We know what a mess this has turned
> }into. How do we now pick the FHP?
> } David
> }
> }At 12:49 AM 12/3/98 -0800, Einar Stefferud wrote:
> }>Hello William -- Your line of argument is exactly why we need to hold
> }>some "Fair Hearing Panels" to faaairly get the facts on the table for
> }>a fair review and fair analysis!
>
> __________________________________________________
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
> ___END____________________________________________

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
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