Re: [council] FW: Outreach document background

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxx>]

HI Stéphane

Well, this is getting interesting…convoluted, but interesting….

Since you've waded in a couple times on a personal basis and Olga's not here to 
reply, let me add my own two cents in the hope that we stimulate some further 
list discussion in advance of the vote Thursday.  All this has happened pretty 
quickly without a full airing, and it'd be better to act based on full and 
symmetric information.

On Dec 13, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> [snip]
> 
> I would also like to comment on your email. I do not believe that when the 
> Council does not immediately rubber stamp a piece of work done by a group, it 
> is disrespecting the work of that group.
> 
> In fact, I would go as far as to say that I believe suggesting this, is 
> disrespecting the Council.

I did not read Olga's message as expecting a rubber stamp, nor do I think her 
expressing disappointment is disrespectful to the council.  It is quite natural 
that someone who devoted a lot of energy for a couple years to running a WT 
that'd been mandated as she detailed, that operated in an open manner with 
representation from all corners of our universe, and that continually refined 
its text based on our feedback, would be surprised to have it suddenly go down 
in flames, particularly without any clear explanation of its purported 
deficiencies.  I doubt that other chairs of WGs WTs etc would be any less 
disappointed if placed in similar circumstances.
> 
> The Council is not a letterbox. It has a responsibility to look at the work 
> produced and say whether it approves it or not.
> 
> What the Council must not do is rework the end product itself. But what it 
> should do is look at the work and evaluate it again, even after it has 
> already been evaluated by the group producing it in the first place.

Here I'm puzzled.  Reworking is precisely what's happened here.  There was a 
motion to charter a body that would perform a set of agreed functions.  Many 
councilors wanted a second deferral and then abstained on the vote because they 
said people should have more time to think about it.  No focused dialogue or 
alternative text ensured until a motion was submitted on the last day, by which 
time it was impossible for proponents of the charter to organize an alternative 
motion.  The motion does not charter said body, just pulls out one of its 
functions and asks staff to do it rather than have a multistakeholder 
collaborative endeavor per the charter.  In what sense is that not a rather 
substantial "rework"?
> 
> This two-level approval process is built into our PDP to ensure that the work 
> that the GNSO ends up approving is truly representative of community 
> consensus (and I won't go into the different levels of consensus as we define 
> them, as that is not important here).
> 
> So I am not comfortable buying into the "the C and SGs were represented on 
> the WG and therefore there should not be disagreement now" argument. First of 
> all, because different people, even from the same constituency, have 
> different opinions.

SGs can of course revise their views, I don't think she's arguing with that 
principle.  At the same time though, one would like to think that SG reps to a 
team do have some communication with their peers and if the latter has 
fundamental problems—e.g. a desire to toss out the entire enterprise—some early 
warning would be given.

> And also because some WG reps may not have the time to adequately look at the 
> work (unfortunate, I know, but a fact of life nonetheless) and that same 
> constituency's Council rep may spot something that went previously unnoticed.

This went on for @ two years, no?  The Charter is ten pages.

Best,

Bill