Re: [wg-review] Comments on WG procedures

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 10:45:08AM +0800, YJ Park (MINC) wrote:
> Kent,
> 
> Thank you for your contribution papers and a well-described note on
> what could have been with "what if."
> 
> > Consider an alternate scenario, one where YJ started the WG with a clear
> > statement of the real schedule, an explanation for why it is so
> > compressed (the need to get things out in time for the required public
> > comment periods before Melbourne), and had channeled the WG from the
> > beginning towards the purpose of people submitting their own best
> > comments.  Do you think that people would have left?
> 
> I have two comments to share with you and Review WG regarding "what if".
> 
> "What if NC forms Review WG as fast as possible say in August when NC
> heard strong demand from GA in Yokoham instead of sometime bewteen
> hustle-bustle holidays."

If that hypothetical WG had used your open-ended Terms of Reference, I
think that the most likely outcomes would be either 

  1) it would have degenerated to a bitter deadlock between those who
  want to do a complete redesign and those who favor the status quo.  We
  would probably still fighting about whether we should be using votes
  or consensus; if that had been decided and we were following the
  voting model advocated by Karl there would be a bitter battle over
  whether new members could join the WG so each side could try to stuff the 
  votes; or

  2) those who favor the status quo would have decided that the PR hit
  was not worth the trouble of endless argument on an email list, and
  long ago left the WG, thus guaranteeing that is not representative of
  the full realm of stakeholders, and thus delegitimizing the results of
  the WG.  The WG would then be composed only of opponents of the status
  quo, who, given free rein, would have come up with some plan that
  called for a complete infeasible redesign of ICANN, which would be
  ignored.  [In fact, we seem to be going down this road at the moment.]

We do have some experience with big open-ended WGs on controversial
subjects, and I haven't seen a silver bullet that would magically make
things work in this case.  To me, it is completely understandable why
the NC would not want to go down this road, and why, with complete
honesty, integrity, and good intentions, they would seriously prefer a
more structured approach.  There isn't any likely path using the big WG
approach that leads to any constructive end.

> "What if NC allow Review WG substantial working days from its initial
> begining
> instead of this kind of energy-consuming tug-of-war between NC and WG."

From what I could see, the real tug of war was between you and most of
the rest of the NC.  The WG was pulled into the battle when you
presented your unapproved expansive terms of reference, immediately
started calling for an extension of time, and proceeded with an election
that wouldn't be complete until the day the WG was to be finished.  You 
operated from day one as if your terms of reference were in effect, and 
naturally the WG followed along, because you were the person entrusted 
with leading the WG.

> As chair of review WG, I feel very responsible for what you have seen here
> and hope Review WG in general can learn from what we have gone through.
> 
> Thanks,
> YJ

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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