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

[ERIC@HI-TEK.COM]

I agree with this appraisal, but I hope we can reserve some room someplace for
the highly entertaining vindictive personal attacks.  This may sound completely
sarcastic, but in fact in mediation and consensus building this may be a useful
tool to help us rid the process of animosity.

Eric wrote:

> I would agree with Harald.  Taking it a step further;  Assume that persons X
> and Y have different agendas and generally just plain don't get along. If
> person X has put forth a proposal that serves his agenda and person Y can
> see that this proposal can also help him achieve his goals, it would be
> LUDICROUS for Y to disagree simply because he doesn't like the idea of
> supporting an idea that may help the other side. That is what compromise is
> all about and that is how you reach a consensus.  Supporting a plan that has
> some benefits to all parties involved and making concessions on less
> important points allows for progress.  I finally feel like we might be able
> to get some things accomplished... lets move forward!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Harald Alvestrand
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 9:01 AM
> To: Adam Todd; Greg Burton
> Cc: wg Review list
> Subject: RE: [wg-review] The Number 1 Problem *
>
> At 14:08 05/01/2001 +1000, Adam Todd wrote:
>
> >>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.
>
> discussing proposal A made by person X based on one's perception that
> person X has agenda Y is not fruitful, IMHO.
> After all, person X may even be pushing towards an attainable consensus
> with proposal A, having abandoned his quest for agenda Y for the nonce; if
> one can focus on proposal A, rather than X or Y, discussion becomes easier.
>
> In this case, I support attempting to avoid focusing on the agenda of the
> person making a proposal, and rather focusing on his proposal.
>
> (comments on the personal agenda disclosed above deleted as being not
> conductive to this discussion. No DNSO-review relevant proposals detected.)
>
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, alvestrand@cisco.com
> +47 41 44 29 94
> Personal email: Harald@Alvestrand.no
>
> --
> 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
>
> --
> 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

--
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