Thanks Avri for stepping into this difficult situation, and for saving a lot of hard work that the WG has performed to date. My last two reports to Council have been rosy, as if there was no problem in the WG. Thus some may question my sanity and/or honesty. Honestly, that was my assessment at the time of each report. Literally the next day after each report, the WG blew up. After the first report and blowup, we were back on track 3 weeks later when I gave my next report (last Thursday). Then the next day the Chair quit for reasons that he has not made clear. In any event, there is strong resolve among the vast majority of the Group to finish what we have started, and to give Council our range of answers to the questions in our Charter. I am confident that Avri will lead us to that interim result. Thanks again to her, and many thanks to those in the WG that have devoted a lot of valuable time and effort to address these issues of malicious 'fast flux'. -Mike R. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 4:52 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: [council] Fwd: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Proposed way forward Hi, Last week, Mike O'Connor, stepped down as chair of the Fast Flux PDP WG in a surprise note to the FF PDP WG mailing list . The group is at a critical juncture and, hopefully, coming to a close on its efforts to produce a report. While I do not expect this report to make policy recommendations that are necessarily ready for a final PDP vote, it will represent a substantive point where the Council will have enough information to take decisions about next steps. My concern, and that of several people I talked to, was that if the WG did not finish this report, the work of the last months would be lost. After various conversations, this is the path I am recommending. At our meeting on 16 Ocober, I will be asking the Council to enodrse my taking this role and following the recommended path. I did speak to Mike R. about which of us should take the chair role, and we agreed that in this case I should take it. I am hoping he will remain in the role of Council Liaison for this WG. I have no intention of remaining chair of this WG beyond the completion of the report and any possible renewal of the charter. Should the council decide to renew the charter, we will need to recruit a new chair. A last note, I believe this event has taught us some things about the running of WGs in the GNSO. I am hoping we can capture this information in the proposed GNSO Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) if it is approved. thanks a. Begin forwarded message:
From: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Date: 1 October 2008 07:27:36 EDT To: gnso-ff-pdp-may08@icann.org Subject: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Proposed way forward
Hi,
Subsequent to Mike O'Connor's surprise resignation, several of us started a series of conversations to figure out what to do next. After speaking to the policy support staff and Mike R. I have decided that I will take on the chair role temporarily. I will participate as a neutral chair and will not take part in any of the decision making at the WG level. I will only stay in the role until we deliver the current report to the GNSO council and it is determined what to do next. I will ask the GNSO Council to endorse my taking this temporary role.
My goal is to bring the current effort to the point where there is a solid document that describes the current state of analysis and opinion that can be sent to the GNSO council for further consideration. At that point the council can figure out the next steps, including the possibility of re-chartering, public comment, decisions etc...
The following is the track I propose to follow:
1. Go ahead with the poll that most of the group had already agreed to. This will be sent out in the next day or so and will last for a week.
2. Marika will take the results of the poll and produce a revised report. This will include her best guesses at the rankings. These will be: agreement for full consensus, Support for rough consensus, and Alternative view(s) and will be based on the polling results.
3. The WG will then start walking through the document to make sure that it corresponds to the various views of the group. Where it doesn't the group, or perhaps sub-groups of those most concerned, will hold further discussion to arrive at sufficient description of the viewpoints. At this point, we will not focus on working toward further consensus, but toward an accurate description of the current viewpoints and positions. Obviously if, once we clarify the viewpoints, we find we have consensus or rough consensus, it will be recorded. We will also make sue the the rankings (Agreement, Support, Alternatives Views) are agreed upon buy the gorup members.
4. The report will be put out for public and constituency comment and then will be discussed by the GNSO council.
Note: At this point I want to take discussion of the charter off the table. Once we have completed the substantive document, the group can discuss the charter and make recommendations to the council on this topic. And of course anyone who has comments on the charter, past or future is welcome to submit text that will be appended to the charter discussion report.
I propose that the meetings on 3 and 10 October be cancelled in order for: - WG members to have time to do the poll - Marika to rework the document - WG members to read the document prior to discussion.
I would also like to schedule a face to face meeting for Cairo. I know that not everyone will attend the Cairo meeting, but I am hoping that the facilities for remote communications will be adequate for those who can't attend to participate remotely.
I have also been told that there are several other people who want to join the group. My inclination is to allow it since I do not believe in closing off groups to new legitimate participants as this gives an advantage to insiders. However, I am rather committed to minimizing the rehash of old arguments, so everyone, current members and new members alike, will be asked to avoid the drive to rehash. Since we will be walking through the document, it is fair game to make sure that all the old arguments are properly represented and it is reasonable for anyone to ask whether a perspective was investigated and what the outcome of the discussion was. And if a perspective, fact or argument is missing, I believe it is reasonable to discuss it and include it in the report so that the report can be as complete as possible.
Finally I know some of you are frustrated and think this should be done by now. All I can say is that this is nature of Working Groups - they go on far longer then anyone is comfortable with. But I believe this is inevitable in a working method that requires that everyone is able to express their viewpoint so that others can understand and consider it. Reaching consensus or even rough consensus on a controversial and complex topic is, unfortunately, an arduous and lengthy task.
Well, I can also say that I am grateful to the WG for the work it has done and that I ask your indulgence for the process I will employ in bringing this effort to a result as soon as possible.
thanks a.