RE: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem *

[Adam Todd <adam@todd.inoz.com>]

/me chuckles

>In terms of the goals of this WG, it implies that we need to be especially 
>aware of the limitations and handicaps the NC members and chair are 
>working under. If we want to make this work better, as wg members we can 
>do certain things:
>
>1. Deal with the current content, not the person who said it, or their 
>past history. Dealing in personalities destroys the foundation of consensus.

I recall this being said a zillion times back in 1996, but it hasn't 
changed the approach or attitudes of many.

I support this totally.

>2. Ignore anyone who doesn't comply with 1. (very difficult to do, I know, 
>but utterly necessary)

No, that's the wrong approach.  If you disclude people because they may 
stray from content into personalities, then you potentially remove any 
input they might have that is useful.

Some people attack a person, but in doing so often actually add 
constructive information that leads to a new direction.  Admittedly this is 
rare, but Dave Crocker use to do it well :)

However, any content from a posting containing personal attack, should have 
all the attack content removed and only the substance of the comment 
remains in any future posting.  If you want to make it personal, do it offline.

>3. Attempt to avoid assuming that person X is motivated by agenda Y.

No, this isn't a constructive suggestion.

Everyone involved is motivated by their agenda, whatever that is.  I'm 
motivated to see an IRSC take supreme position and do what ICANN was 
originally suppose to do. IRSC is already doing this and my concentration 
will be on swaying anyone and everyone to this line of thinking.  Telling 
me that Competing root servers corrupt name space is a stupid comment 
because Competing roots have been running for over 5 years now and there is 
no corruption to name space.

The Agenda is important because it will help EVERYONE identify the 
direction, objective and potential of any submissions.

The idea of ignoring Agenda is a Nazi method of ensuring that the workers 
are kept in the dark as to the true direction of what is going to happen.

I'm not interested din hidden agendas.  I like up front agendas.

Dave Crocker was a worthy opponent because he argued HIS agenda, not his 
PERSONAL interest.  That made him credible, even if *I* and many didn't 
agree with the Agenda put forward.   That's just an example of 96/97/98 debate.

>Ignore any response that attempts to tell you what someone else is REALLY 
>doing, or what the REAL agenda is.

No don't ignore it at all.  Once this has happened the person who has the 
"hidden" agenda should make a public statement outlining their agenda and 
ideals in full.  This will add content and inspiration to the discussion.

It also ensures that the person can't back track later and deny their position.

This is STANDARD in all things.  Members of Parliament, Local Council, 
Corporations etc are REQUIRED to provide any and all details of all 
interests outside or related to their activities in their Elected Role.

It's called "Conflict of Interest" at the worst case or "Comparison of 
Interest" where it's unrelated.

It's very important.

It also helps others decide what kind of character and value that person 
brings to the debate/discussion.    You don't need MBA's and LLB's and BA's 
to be useful.

>Any such response is not interested in consensus, but in persuading you to 
>some political position or other.

Yes exactly, which is WHY it must be fully disclosed.  And PUBLICLY and ON 
RECORD.

>In consensus, we shouldn't be concerned with who's agenda is what - we 
>should be concerned with community dialogue and generating agreement on 
>relevant content where possible.

But the "community" isn't one track thinking.  IT's made up of all these 
people with different agendas.  What you are suggesting is that you are 
Neapolitan The Pig and all other animals are equal - some are less equal 
than others.

That's not the case at all.  We are all different with different ideas, 
objectives and directions.  That MUST be reflected in the Working Group or 
there is no need for a working Group if there is only one Agenda 
represented by all the constituents.

In fact if this is the case, then get rid of Politics altogether and why do 
we need an ICANN?  Everyone according to your direction has the same view.

That would imply you no longer wish to be part of the discussion because 
you are happy with whatever is decided.  As you don't have an agenda at 
all, therefore you can't add anything nor will you be unhappy with any 
decision.

I'm sure this isn't correct.

>This is not to say that there aren't agendas operating - just that if we 
>focus on the presented content, what emerges will be either accepted as 
>consensus statements or not, and the agenda is irrelevant.

The Agenda is critical and MUST be disclosed - and BY the person WITH the 
Agenda.  If they wish not to make full disclose that's fine.  Then it's 
fair to disclude them from the debate as you can't be sure whether they are 
being honest and fair or deceptive.

>4. When replying to a message that contains both personality content and 
>productive content, deal just with the productive content and delete the 
>personality content from your reply.

Yes, I mentioned that above.


>6. Ask ourselves before we post "Does this comment facilitate or impede 
>the consensus process?" and "Is this post relevant to the thread topic?"

Don't you do that EVERY time?  Like it's a bit late once you hit the SEND 
button!

>If we can do these things, we can address a great deal of material 
>constructively in a limited time.

I totally agree.


--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html