Re: [wg-review] Comments on WG procedures

["YJ Park (MINC)" <yjpark@minc.org>]

Kent,

Let me explain about the Terms of Reference story.

NC first decided to form WG Review in Marina del Rey last Nov.
And then later, some -not most rest of NC, though- started to say No.
I asked why and after a series of discussion some requested me to
submit such Terms of Reference to them before NC meeting in advance.

NC had rarely put things in advance until recently for the meeting.
I did. More precisely, such Terms of Reference discussion was done
in a small group 20 or so which I thought can give inputs on the document.
That group had pretty many of current WG Review members including you.

Bret Fausset, Milton Mueller and Karl Auerbach made some comments
on that. Therefore, version 0.3 Terms of Reference was finally circulated
before it went to NC just as I have done with Jan. 15th Report here.

I was about to circulate it on the promised day with NC and Ken Stubbs
already got the document and he forwared it to NC, version 0.3 Terms of
Reference with a request that he also wants to be in the group. Since then,
he and a few more joined the group for a while until the teleconference.

However, in the Dec NC teleconference, due to lots of different opinions
regarding WG Review's formation itself for almost one hour that document
was not even discussed at all, which is unusual and indeed unfortunate.

Usually, when a working group is blessed by NC especially which has
already submitted its "Terms of Reference" to NC, my understanding is NC
also blessed such Terms of Reference, too. And then what's the use for
them to ask for me to submit it before NC meeting?

NC asked for WG Review's Terms of Reference, which I did.
It's not a game. Therefore, I still think Terms of Reference version 0.3
which was circulated by NC's request and NC has reviewed it.
Therefore, Terms of Reference deserves its respect.

If my common sense is not common, well I'm puzzled again.

Thanks,
YJ

> > "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
>
>

--
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