Re: [wg-b] WG-B Report

["Mark C. Langston" <mark@bitshift.org>]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2000 at 09:54:21AM +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> WG Report
>
> I do think there is a little over reaction to the inclusion of the
> latest version of the Sunrise proposal in the WG B report. The report
> includes it and says:
>
> "Unfortunately due to the time in which this report was submitted to
> me and the rest of the Working Group, there was not adequate time
> for proper discussion among the Working Group B participants."  This
> is rather clear.  To officially keep the NC in the dark about a
> revised option such as this would be odd given that its existence is
> well known.  We also need to be clear about the implications of a
> consensus vote on a WG. A vote is indicative of the balance of
> opinion in a WG. It is not an indicator of support outside the
> WG. WG membership is self appointed and partial. I do not see that
> as a problem so long as it is understood. A WG report presents
> options and says certain options were favoured by the WG, certain
> options were not and, in this case, certain options have not yet
> been discussed.


Mr. Sheppard -
  If you, as a member of the DNSO Names Council, truly believe that it
is acceptable for the product of a WG to be arrived at in this manner, than
you should begin the process of abolishing the WG system altogether.

The entire REASON for the Working Group format, and for making the mailing
list the primary vehicle by which work will be done, was to ensure that
exactly this sort of capture did not occur.  What _should_ have happened
was the following:

  Work would occur primarily on this mailing list, where everyone has a
  fair chance to participate, and there is an accurate record kept of
  the discussions.  ANY WORK DONE OUTSIDE THE GROUP would be brought 
  back into the group for vetting and approval before moving ahead.
  The product(s) of the WG would either be developed on-list, or off-list
  and once again brought back to be vetted and approved by everyone who
  wishes to participate.

  This results in the widest possible reach, the most inclusion, and 
  an equity of time and cost for participation.

Instead, what _did_ happen is this:

  Work occurred primarily outside this working group, in private physical
  meetings, or in physical meetings so far removed that only those monied
  interests could attend.  Work occurred in unannounced conference calls,
  and in private phone conversations and e-mail exchanges.  The chair of
  this Working Group hand-picked who he wished to vet his and others'
  proposals, and then brought these results back at the very last minute,
  DECLARING (rather than seeking) consensus from the full group.

  The product of this working group does not outline the difficulties
  in our task, the ways in which we've strayed very far from our charter,
  or the fact that the apparent consensus is in fact opposition to the
  very paper that Mr. Palage presents as a consensus document.  Furthermore,
  that "sunrise" document is not a footnote to the product -- it is, for
  all intents and purposes, the product.  That this proposal is a variation
  on Mr. Palage's own is no accident.

This is capture, plain and simple.  The chair of the Registrar Constituency
solicited opinions from a handful of people that _he_ chose, presented 
documents at Santiago, at Cairo, and now to the NC that were developed
exclusively out of sight and out of reach of the full, open working
group, and colluded with certain members of the IP Constituency to
achieve this end-run around what is SUPPOSED TO BE a bottom-up,
inclusive, consensus process.

Once more:  If you do not see the problem with this, then I STRONGLY
recommend that the NC immediately scrap the Working Group structure and
simply hand-pick and appoint special committees to do all their work
for them.  This sort of behavior may be tolerated in the latter instance.
But to playact at running an open, inclusive, bottom-up process and then
to actually _support_ this type of behavior is insulting.

If you want to have things run this way, fine.  Do it.  But don't insult
us by pretending that this in any way resembles fair and inclusive 
consensus-building.




> 
> Next comes public consultation. This is the important one.

1)  I doubt very much that the NC or the ICANN BoD will consider the
public opinion any more than they are considering the non-sunrise 
positions presented in this WG, if you are to be viewed as representative
of the NC.  And, by title, you are.

2)  If the "public consultation" is "the important one", why did you
waste our collective time for the past year by having us participate in
a group whose apparent purpose was to layer a patina of legitimacy over a 
foregone conclusion?



> Philip.
> 
> Philip Sheppard
> WG B Co-NC Liaison
> 
> 


You know, one of these days, there's going to be a _real_ threat to
the stability of the Net, and there's not much the mighty IP
Constituency and their deep pockets can do about it.  Keep throwing
your muscle around like this, and you may find that the people who
know how to operate the border routers, the switches, the servers
hosting mission-critical switches have had their fill of your antics,
organize, and go on strike.  And unlike a factory floor, your chances
of finding scabs and strikebreakers to come in and run the machinery
for you are significantly smaller.



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