Jay and all, Jay Fenello wrote: > At 1/13/99, 03:25 AM, Jim Dixon wrote: > > > >It may be relevant to talk about the bwg-n-friends list. This > >evolved out of private correspondence that started before the IFWP > >steering committee collapsed. Some time after the Boston meeting > >there were enough people involved that the CC list became unwieldy, > >so someone proposed setting up bwg-n-friends. > > > >What no one mentioned was the setting up of a second, secret list, > >bwg-core. After a while it became apparent that all of the real > >decisions were being made on the secret list; the rest of us were > >just there to make proposals. That is, we were back in the old > >familiar "request for public comments / decisions behind closed doors > >by the inner circle" loop. > > > >So when Karl talks about secrecy and pretence you can be sure that > >he knows whereof he speaks. > > > >This whole process, on all sides, needs the light of day. > > Hi Jim, > > While light is good, I think we have a bigger issue > here -- what exactly is an open process? How do we > structure one so that everyone can participate fairly, > while actually allowing work to get done? I think that we all know what "Open" is. The trick is defining it in no uncertain terms in the context of what we are trying to accomplish and the desire to attract many people to devise a consensus. > > > Somewhere along the line, we've come to expect > that an open process precludes private meetings > and communications. I disagree with that sentiment. No doubt this is true. But how far do you carry this? Where is the line between what should and can be considered open and yet have some private conversations within that framework? Is this determined by WHAT can or SHOULD be discussed, such as a member of jury must do in a court case? And is such effectable? The answers here are yes and no in our opinion. Yes, part of the definition of how to achieve openness, and still allow for some private communications is grounded in WHAT the subject is when the private communication takes place. No, in that this can be effected with any realistic degree of accuracy. So, as Becky Burr has suggested earlier in her post regarding the conversation with the ORSC, ex parte rules must apply. > > > Personally, I believe that there is no preventing > private discussions. In fact, every time I pick up > the phone, I have one. And it seems like at least > once a day, I have a conference call with three or > more people. Am I violating some kind of open > process? Whether you are violating "Some Kind" of open process is whether you later than accurately as possible report back on those conversations to all "Interested Parties" as the White Paper requires. > > > The same argument applies to email. Is exchanging > email with a single person allowed in an open process? Again this depends on WHAT in this context, the subject matter is. > > What about three people? Five? What about a small > mailing list of five? Ten? Twenty? Same answer as above. > > > Where do you draw the line? > > IMHO, it is ok for private meetings and communications > to occur, as long as the *decision* making process is > fair and open to all. The real question is "how do > we structure such a process?" It is much more than just the "Decision" making process to be fair and open as you should well know. It is WHAT the subject matter IS. Framing the "Decision" process through private conversations that are not open are easily manipulated and therefore divisive. And this seems to be the practice of some parties grounded in these discussions. As such gross unfairness through lack of openness and transparency becomes the result. Once that result becomes known or somewhat obvious trust is than eroded, ahd the process begins to implode or feed upon itself until it is just a skeleton of it's former self. > > > I suggest that we need a new paradigm for working > together using mailing lists in cyberspace. Here > is one idea I forwarded to the ICANN MAC, one that > reflects the reality of list use today: > > At 12/28/98, 01:04 AM, Jay Fenello wrote: > >> > >>In debating the membership structure, what do you think about having a public > >>comment listserv which is moderated to avoid excessive individual posts? > >> > >>Should there be list rules and if so, what would they be? So far, we've only > >>discussed a per-day limit on the number of posts from any single individual > >>and a prohibition on cross-posting. > > > >This question is one that has plagued us many times over > >the last many months. I am slowly coming to the opinion > >that we need a new construct for public comments that allow > >*both* open and closed lists to coexist. > > > >So, rather than a moderated list approach, I suggest a > >construct that features lists within lists. For example: > > - Decisions Maker's List (10 members) > > - Advisor's List (30 members) > > - Open List (100s of members) Whom determines who is on which list? How is a Decision maker defined or decided? How is a Advisor determined or decided? For instance, I am a decision maker with our company and with several other companies as a board member. Does this put me in the Decision makers list in the context of these decisions? If not why not? I am also a Stakeholder and Domain Name holder, so are you Jay. Is not the ICANN/SO's supposed to be a "Bottom-Up" determined organizations? So as Domain name owners and stakeholders, are we than on the Decision Makers list? The Advisors list? Or the open list? Are you beginning to see the situation here Jay? Or need I go further? The way I see this is one fundamental question or FACT must be either established or excepted. It is a Chicken and Egg sort of thing. But the White Paper really already answered it. But the ICANN and DNSO.ORG thus far are denying or ignoring that answer or FACT. Chicken = The organization (ICANN, DNS, PSO, ASO) Egg = All stakeholders/intrested parties or users The Chicken is the result of the hatching of the Egg. The Chicken becomes all of the parts of the Egg. In different terms, The ICANN, and all the SO's, through the At-larg, general, or individual membership are indeed the source of determining any and all policies, directly or indirectly for the ICANN and within the SO's provide all of the "Advisory" input to the ICANN Membership, whom than deliberates and than votes on what policies shall be implemented. The ICANN Board is also elected by this same membership from among it's members and are committee and SO directors from their respective general, at-large or individual memberships. The ICANN Board or the SO's Directors possition here is one of oversite and implimentor. So, now that you have excepted this basic precept or concept, you can than began to incorporate your E-Mail list structure, Jay. But if you do not except this basic precept, you fine yourself chasing yourself and everyone else around in a circle. Special Note: Every time I read the White Paper I am more and more amazed as to the wonderful document it really is. I think that many miss this fact or belittle it unjustly to a great degree. Becky Burr?, should be commended for a truly wonderful and amazing document. > > > > >Each list would only accept postings from its members, but > >postings to each list would be propagated to the list immediately > >below it (or all lists below it). This ensures an open process, it > > >gives everyone a chance to comment, and it allows work to get done. > > This is basically a list within a list approach: > > +----------------------------+ > | +------------------------+ | > | | +--------------------+ | | > | | | Decision Maker's | | | > | | | List | | | > | | +--------------------+ | | > | | Advisor's List | | > | +------------------------+ | > | Open List | > +----------------------------+ > > It allows everyone to participate, it allows the > discussions on the smaller lists to be viewed and > commented on by the larger lists, and it allows > the best ideas to "filter" up to the decision > maker's. > > In actuality, it is an attempt to formalize the > informal process that occurs today, while adding > a dimension of openness that is currently not > available. > > Bottom line, solving this problem is part of > the process of creating a new tradition of self > governance. > > Comments and suggestions welcome. > > Respectfully, > > Jay Fenello > President, Iperdome, Inc. > 404-943-0524 http://www.iperdome.com > > __________________________________________________ > To receive the digest version instead, send a > blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ___END____________________________________________ Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208 __________________________________________________ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END____________________________________________
