RE: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 7 June 2007
Mawaki, I personally think the suggestions of deceit and political ambition are inappropriate and suggest that you argue your points objectively without making such assertions. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:29 PM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: Re: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 7 June 2007
[Bruce] it is better to proceed in such a way that minimises risk in the first round, but also allows flexibility to update the recommendations based on experience of the first round.
Do you have anything specific in mind? what and where are the provisions to ensure such flexibility? I think it is important to know concretely how this can be handled, should the need arise.
I don't see any contradiction between the fact that a lot of work has been put into a PDP, and the possibility for the *Council* to determine in the end the level of support for each recommendation so that, as Bruce has put it, at least the recommendations that are capable of supermajority be secured and built on later on.
The argument that the recommendations cannot be considered individually because they are inter-dependent is a fallacious one because i) most of the recommendations have been discussed separately during the process, and ii) if recommendations are so inter-related that it wouldn't make sense to adopt/implement one without the other, then clearly those who support one will support the other.
Similarly, the idea of the committee having thoroughly discussed the issues raised by NCUC (for example) without any proponents of those ideas/issues being there to explain and respond is deceitful.
Note Not all the recommendations please everyone. It is not appropriate for Council to revisit issues just because individuals wish to re-run arguments that earlier failed to persuade. If that's how we will play it then the BC will return with our original wish list, so may the IPC, so may the ISPs, so may ... etc.
This is so bright! just that in such perspective, the PDP process is nothing but a merely political process governed by corporatism. (You may note, Liz, that this is not the best mindset and environment for dialogue between constituencies as you've been encouraging for.) If that's the case, then it should be no surprise that courts become (are?) the only place where some sense of higher norms and overall legitimacy is re-stablished in the ICANN's decisions.
That shouldn't worry me, but I'm worried that this is the perspective of an aspirant chairman for the council.
Mawaki
--- Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be> wrote:
Bruce, allow me to respond to your questions about how we handle the gTLD report.
1. We treated this issue as a committee of the whole of
process was explicitly to ensure incremental buy-in to recommendations by Council. It escapes all logic that Council would then vote on each recommendation. That process would seem suited to a task force report. Have we all been wasting our time? I trust not.
2. We also opened the group to observers and received excellent input. That was also a process designed to explicitly ensure incremental buy-in to recommendations by the wider community.
3. Staff have diligently drafted version upon version of
that we were all able to track emerging recommendations
broad support. What was the point of all that if we now vote on each recommendation as if it came from nowhere ?
4. The recommendations were not made in glorious isolation. Many are inter-dependent. We will end up with a pigs breakfast if we assume the recommendations can operate in isolation.
Conclusion We must vote on the report as a whole.
Note Not all the recommendations please everyone. It is not appropriate for Council to revisit issues just because individuals wish to re-run arguments that earlier failed to
Council. This the report so that achieved persuade.
If that's how we will play it then the BC will return with our original wish list, so may the IPC, so may the ISPs, so may ... etc.
Further work There are a lot of issues that need further work or at least feedback to Council on their implementation. Indeed this applies to most recommendations ! It would be useful therefore to explicitly mark in the report where Council expects formal feedback from staff. That makes it clear for us, clear for staff.
Link to the sub groups We also need to make explicit reference to the inclusion and support for these reports where appropriate.
Philip
Mawaki, you may like to consider consulting references on the subject on "unparliamentary behaviour" before your next contribution to Council. Philip
Political ambition? Hmm... interesting to hear that. Based on reactions to my earlier email both on the list and off, I think the following clarification is in order. When I used the term "deceitful", I didn't mean that the committee was manipulating and deceiving people. In fact, I was talikng of a specific *argument*, right? In my mind at the time of writing, that term means the same as flawed, fallacious or misleading. And indeed, it is misleading: again how can you be so sure you've correctly and fairly address those issues without the participation of the proponents, without any contradicting party? or was there one? So if that term offended any one committee member, I do apologize for that. It was not meant to offense people, but to point out that an *argument* was flawed and misleading. Other than that, I think I have the right to worry that a past and prospective chair of the council: i) threatens to return to the starting blocks with his constituency "wish list" (demands? revendications?) because some of another constituency's critical views have been mostly discussed in their absence and they feel those are not substantially addressed enough as a consequence; ii) displays the disdain of picking, as chair of the Whois WG, the members of the WG whose questions to address and ignoring the rest as he pleases (note: addressing a question directed to someone, as that was the case, does not necessary mean having a definite answer to it.) I don't know if those are "parliamentary" manners. If others here wouldn't find the above latter offensive, some others do and I certainly am part of these others. Regards, Mawaki --- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Mawaki,
I personally think the suggestions of deceit and political ambition are inappropriate and suggest that you argue your points objectively without making such assertions.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:29 PM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: Re: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 7 June 2007
[Bruce] it is better to proceed in such a way that minimises risk in the first round, but also allows flexibility to update the recommendations based on experience of the first round.
Do you have anything specific in mind? what and where are the provisions to ensure such flexibility? I think it is important to know concretely how this can be handled, should
the need arise.
I don't see any contradiction between the fact that a lot of
work has been put into a PDP, and the possibility for the *Council* to determine in the end the level of support for each recommendation so that, as Bruce has put it, at least the recommendations that are capable of supermajority be secured and built on later on.
The argument that the recommendations cannot be considered individually because they are inter-dependent is a fallacious one because i) most of the recommendations have been discussed separately during the process, and ii) if recommendations are so inter-related that it wouldn't make sense to adopt/implement one without the other, then clearly
those who support one will support the other.
Similarly, the idea of the committee having thoroughly discussed the issues raised by NCUC (for example) without any proponents of those ideas/issues being there to explain and respond is deceitful.
Note Not all the recommendations please everyone. It is not appropriate for Council to revisit issues just because individuals wish to re-run arguments that earlier failed to persuade. If that's how we will play it then the BC will return with our original wish list, so may the IPC, so may the ISPs, so may ... etc.
This is so bright! just that in such perspective, the PDP process is nothing but a merely political process governed by corporatism. (You may note, Liz, that this is not the best mindset and environment for dialogue between constituencies as you've been encouraging for.) If that's the case, then it
should be no surprise that courts become (are?) the only place where some sense of higher norms and overall legitimacy is re-stablished in the ICANN's decisions.
That shouldn't worry me, but I'm worried that this is the perspective of an aspirant chairman for the council.
Mawaki
--- Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be> wrote:
Bruce, allow me to respond to your questions about how we handle
report.
1. We treated this issue as a committee of the whole of Council. This process was explicitly to ensure incremental buy-in to recommendations by Council. It escapes all logic that Council would then vote on each recommendation. That process would seem suited to a task force report. Have we all been wasting our time? I trust not.
2. We also opened the group to observers and received excellent input. That was also a process designed to explicitly ensure incremental buy-in to recommendations by the wider community.
3. Staff have diligently drafted version upon version of
that we were all able to track emerging recommendations
broad support. What was the point of all that if we now vote on each recommendation as if it came from nowhere ?
4. The recommendations were not made in glorious isolation. Many are inter-dependent. We will end up with a pigs breakfast if we assume the recommendations can operate in isolation.
Conclusion We must vote on the report as a whole.
Note Not all the recommendations please everyone. It is not appropriate for Council to revisit issues just because individuals wish to re-run arguments that earlier failed to
the gTLD the report so that achieved persuade.
If that's how we will play it then the BC will return with our original wish list, so may the IPC, so may the ISPs, so may ... etc.
Further work There are a lot of issues that need further work or at least feedback to Council on their implementation. Indeed this applies to most recommendations ! It would be useful therefore to explicitly mark in the report where Council expects formal feedback from staff. That makes it clear for us, clear for staff.
Link to the sub groups We also need to make explicit reference to the inclusion and support for these reports where appropriate.
Philip
Mawaki, I do not understand your concern about the WHOIS WG. You asked an excellent question on the WHOIS WG and I said that the question was in my view out of scope of the WG charter. This is not a refusal to answer but one that recognised the limit to the responsibilities of a WG chair. To address out of scope questions on a group of more than 60 with a large proportion being observers new to the ICANN process seemed unwise. I recommended that you ask the question of Council. You have not done so. Philip
Philip, Thanks for your reply. Not that I want to further argue this with you, but I also received a message off-list, cc'ed to all those in the cc field above but one (the author of that message) saying that I have misrepresented the episode I was referring to. So to avoid having to write various emails to say basically the same thing, and for the records, allow me here to reply to you et al. with a recall of the sequence of events as follows. 1. Bertrand de la Chappelle (Observer!) asked a question in a posting with subject line "A single regime for all gTLDs or not?"; 2. Philip answered; 3. I asked Philip, clearly naming him, for a clarification on his answer; 4. Danny Younger asked another question about Philip's answer to Bertrand; 5. Philip replied to Danny's question; 6. I reposted my earlier question directed to Philip to the list with a note asking, what about it? 7. Still no answer; 8. I received a message offline from Maria encouraging me to restate my question; 9. I reposted the question to the list; 10. At last, Philip answered under a new thread: "consensus policy" referring me to the council. 11. I then posted a new message with the subject line: "Question on a statement made by the chair of this WG (not on consensus policy)" And that was it, for the main part and as far as Philip and myself were concerned (following that, Danny commented on Philip's assumptions, and Jeff Williams on Danny's comment.) Point 1 to 11 above took place between May 21 and 24 under the three subject lines quoted above. So anyone who's interested to find out whether I'm misrepresenting can check that in the list archives, instead of letting themselves be told someone else's version of the story. That was my last word on this. Mawaki --- philip.sheppard@aim.be wrote:
Mawaki,
I do not understand your concern about the WHOIS WG. You asked an excellent question on the WHOIS WG and I said that the question was in my view out of scope of the WG charter. This is not a refusal to answer but one that recognised the limit to the responsibilities of a WG chair. To address out of scope questions on a group of more than 60 with a large proportion being observers new to the ICANN process seemed unwise.
I recommended that you ask the question of Council. You have not done so.
Philip
Mawaki, Thanks for the clarifying your use of the word 'deceitful'; I confess that I did not take as you intended at all. Regarding your view regarding past and future chairs, I don't agree with your assessment, but it is okay to disagree. Chuck Gomes "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: Mawaki Chango [mailto:ki_chango@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 11:16 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO; gtld-council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: Next steps with the new gTLD recommendations (was: Draft Agenda for... 7 June 2007)
Political ambition? Hmm... interesting to hear that.
Based on reactions to my earlier email both on the list and off, I think the following clarification is in order.
When I used the term "deceitful", I didn't mean that the committee was manipulating and deceiving people. In fact, I was talikng of a specific *argument*, right? In my mind at the time of writing, that term means the same as flawed, fallacious or misleading. And indeed, it is misleading: again how can you be so sure you've correctly and fairly address those issues without the participation of the proponents, without any contradicting party? or was there one?
So if that term offended any one committee member, I do apologize for that. It was not meant to offense people, but to point out that an *argument* was flawed and misleading.
Other than that, I think I have the right to worry that a past and prospective chair of the council:
i) threatens to return to the starting blocks with his constituency "wish list" (demands? revendications?) because some of another constituency's critical views have been mostly discussed in their absence and they feel those are not substantially addressed enough as a consequence;
ii) displays the disdain of picking, as chair of the Whois WG, the members of the WG whose questions to address and ignoring the rest as he pleases (note: addressing a question directed to someone, as that was the case, does not necessary mean having a definite answer to it.)
I don't know if those are "parliamentary" manners. If others here wouldn't find the above latter offensive, some others do and I certainly am part of these others.
Regards,
Mawaki
--- "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Mawaki,
I personally think the suggestions of deceit and political ambition are inappropriate and suggest that you argue your points objectively without making such assertions.
Chuck Gomes
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:29 PM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: Re: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting - Thursday 7 June 2007
[Bruce] it is better to proceed in such a way that minimises risk in the first round, but also allows flexibility to update the recommendations based on experience of the first round.
Do you have anything specific in mind? what and where are the provisions to ensure such flexibility? I think it is important to know concretely how this can be handled, should
the need arise.
I don't see any contradiction between the fact that a lot of
work has been put into a PDP, and the possibility for the *Council* to determine in the end the level of support for each recommendation so that, as Bruce has put it, at least the recommendations that are capable of supermajority be secured and built on later on.
The argument that the recommendations cannot be considered individually because they are inter-dependent is a fallacious one because i) most of the recommendations have been discussed separately during the process, and ii) if recommendations are so inter-related that it wouldn't make sense to adopt/implement one without the other, then clearly
those who support one will support the other.
Similarly, the idea of the committee having thoroughly discussed the issues raised by NCUC (for example) without any proponents of those ideas/issues being there to explain and respond is deceitful.
Note Not all the recommendations please everyone. It is not appropriate for Council to revisit issues just because individuals wish to re-run arguments that earlier failed to persuade. If that's how we will play it then the BC will return with our original wish list, so may the IPC, so may the ISPs, so may ... etc.
This is so bright! just that in such perspective, the PDP process is nothing but a merely political process governed by corporatism. (You may note, Liz, that this is not the best mindset and environment for dialogue between constituencies as you've been encouraging for.) If that's the case, then it
should be no surprise that courts become (are?) the only place where some sense of higher norms and overall legitimacy is re-stablished in the ICANN's decisions.
That shouldn't worry me, but I'm worried that this is the perspective of an aspirant chairman for the council.
Mawaki
--- Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be> wrote:
Bruce, allow me to respond to your questions about how we handle
report.
1. We treated this issue as a committee of the whole of Council. This process was explicitly to ensure incremental buy-in to recommendations by Council. It escapes all logic that Council would then vote on each recommendation. That process would seem suited to a task force report. Have we all been wasting our time? I trust not.
2. We also opened the group to observers and received excellent input. That was also a process designed to explicitly ensure incremental buy-in to recommendations by the wider community.
3. Staff have diligently drafted version upon version of
that we were all able to track emerging recommendations
broad support. What was the point of all that if we now vote on each recommendation as if it came from nowhere ?
4. The recommendations were not made in glorious isolation. Many are inter-dependent. We will end up with a pigs breakfast if we assume the recommendations can operate in isolation.
Conclusion We must vote on the report as a whole.
Note Not all the recommendations please everyone. It is not appropriate for Council to revisit issues just because individuals wish to re-run arguments that earlier failed to
the gTLD the report so that achieved persuade.
If that's how we will play it then the BC will return with our original wish list, so may the IPC, so may the ISPs, so may ... etc.
Further work There are a lot of issues that need further work or at least feedback to Council on their implementation. Indeed this applies to most recommendations ! It would be useful therefore to explicitly mark in the report where Council expects formal feedback from staff. That makes it clear for us, clear for staff.
Link to the sub groups We also need to make explicit reference to the inclusion and support for these reports where appropriate.
Philip
participants (4)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Mawaki Chango -
Philip Sheppard -
philip.sheppard＠aim.be