Re: [atlarge-discuss] Last Man Standing

["Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>]

Danny, et al:

    I am not particularly concerned with the number of panel members, and
although I would love to see a globally diverse panel I certainly don't feel
obliged to comply with the flawed ICANN regional representation model.  What
does concern me is that the panel must have both the responsibility and the
authority to represent the will of the membership.  Without that, their very
existence is meaningless.  I believe that unless the organization adopts
policies that the panel may represent as the will of the membership, we are
wasting our time and will have zero credibility.  Representation will grow
as members increase their level of participation.

    The number of panel members should be determined by the work to be done,
the individuals who have the appropriate skill sets, and who are willing to
do the work.  I doubt that there is a need at this stage for a large panel,
but as participation increases, we may well find that regional
representation requires more than the five panel members that you suggest.
Panel members should be elected in open elections and should be free to
choose their own leader.  That leader will be the official representative of
the membership.  The panel should, however, have the freedom to appoint any
panel member (or other member for that matter) to represent the interests of
the membership in any given specialized arena.

    In my humble opinion, leadership in this type of organization is not
telling the membership what policy decisions the panel has made. Nor is it
participating in every discussion on the list.  Leadership is identifying
policy issues, presenting them to the membership for development, reporting
on related developments in other arenas and ensuring that the membership
participate in the process.  Once a policy document has been adopted by the
membership it becomes the duty of the leadership team to administer it and
represent the organizations mandate in the global arena.

    The trick is to be able to develop the policies at the participant
level.

    If any one person, or any group of people wish to address a single
issue, be it something basic like the skill set requirements for a panel
member nominee, or something more technical like some of the DNS issues,
they may.  It would simply require a numerically ascending issue number in
the subject line of an email to the discuss list, and all who wish to help
develop a proposed policy document for that issue would correspond in open
forum with the issue number as the thread coordinator.  When the members of
any such discussion agree on a draft policy, they choose one of their
correspondents to present it to the panel for discussion in open dialog
limited to the presenter and a panel member.  At any time the presenter may
return to the issue discussion group to reassess the policy in the light of
the panel discussion, or leave the draft policy on the table (possibly with
one or more competing draft policy documents on the same issue) to be judged
by the entire membership in a vote to adopt the policy as part of the
organization's mandate.

    What, you may ask, if an issue falls by the wayside for lack of
interest?  That my friends will determine who has the right to take up the
time and energy of the panel members.  For no issue will be addressed by the
panel until it receives a draft policy arrived at by consensus of the issue
discussion group.

    What if the panel, our leadership team, determines that an issue is not
being addressed? The answer to that is also simple. One or more panel
members will introduce the issue (possibly with a draft policy document),
provide it with an issue number, and leave the membership to decide who has
an interest and is prepared to develop the issue into a draft policy
document with consensual support.  If there is no public response, the panel
members are free to present their own draft policy document for adoption by
public vote.

    The most important component of this structure is that the membership,
in all its diversity, is the policy development engine.  If the membership
fails in its responsibilities, and only if the membership fails in its
responsibilities, the panel will fulfill its leadership role by taking on
that function and offering a draft policy for membership adoption.  But,
panel members will not be required to respond to every nuance of every
comment made by every participant on every issue. Nor will they have to
suffer the barbs and sarcasm leveled at them for not doing so.

    Once the duties of the panel are recognized as being limited to
representing and administering adopted policy, and presenting issues to be
addressed by the membership, they will be judged by their performance in
that role, and not by their political views or aspirations.  Let's make
ourselves responsible for our own policy decisions instead of blaming the
panel for failing to make everybody happy.

    I suspect that the environment outlined above would encourage more, well
qualified, nominees from which to choose our leadership panel.

Sincerely, Ron Sherwood

----- Original Message -----
From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
To: <sherwood@islands.vi>; <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Last Man Standing


> Hello Ron,
>
> I support the structure that you have proposed, and frankly, I see no harm
in
> "limiting the number of panel members to the number of fingers on one hand
> (with some amputations)".  This group has twice tried an eleven-member
panel
> (with disastrous results on each occasion) -- what is to be gained by
> repeating the same folly yet again?
>
> Maybe I just don't "get it", but I don't understand the particular "magic"
in
> the number "eleven".  Why wouldn't "five" suffice?  Ideally, one would
have a
> representative from each ICANN region in order to satisfy diversity
> requirements.  However, as we enter into this election, once again there
has
> been no consideration given to diversity by those panelists that are
> orchestrating this election...   One might rightly ask, just how
legitimate
> will this group be if it winds up electing the bulk of its panelists
> primarily from North America?
>
> But, I see no real point in obstructing the election process at this late
> stage, so... let's move to the "Bottom line"...
>
> The problem with icannatlarge has been that this particular group has
failed
> time after time owing to a lack of "leadership", and owing to the fact
that
> some panelists chose to use this organization as a springboard for their
own
> ambitions.
>
> Those with stellar biographies are not necessarily leaders with any degree
of
> talent in either building an organization or in properly articulating a
set
> of views.  This has twice been proven.  Who then, should we look for to
bring
> this effort to fruition?
>
> I can trust those who, like yourself, (and like Joop and Eric) have
> demonstrated their commitment to the process by taking the time to attend
and
> participate in ICANN sessions.  I can trust those who (like Richard
Henderson
> and David Farrar) have taken the time to express their views to ICANN
> management and who advocate in all the relevant fora for the benefit of
the
> user interest.
>
> Unfortunately, when you conduct a vote and send out ballots to hundreds of
> folks that haven't followed the discussions, that haven't participated on
the
> discussion lists, and most likely aren't even aware that the organization
> still exists (after all, it hasn't accomplished anything at all in an
entire
> year), these people will only see whatever brief candidate statements are
> presented -- and that's the real problem and the major failure in this
badly
> flawed democratic process.
>
> This election does not have a timeline that allows for a thorough debate
> between the parties.  Sadly, it has been arranged as nothing more than
just
> another beauty contest that will allow the Last Men Standing to assume
> positions within the organization.
>
> So, I will await the results of this latest initiative with very low
> expectations.  As I see it, having this needlessly large panel means that
you
> will wind up selecting some that are quite capable, and you will select
> others whose only goal is to augment their resumes with a new entry.  Like
> before, the lethargy of those with no real desire to serve will hamstring
the
> efforts of those that seek to get something accomplished, and eventually
> those few remaining will, like their predecessors, finally realize that
it's
> long past time to turn out the lights.
>
> Like the IDNO, I expect that icannatlarge will be yet another failed
attempt
> to launch a cyberdemocracy.  If the truth be told, therein lies the
> problem...
>
> Other constituencies accept the fact their raison-d'etre is to provide
> commentary on DNS issues... this group of participants, on the other hand,
> seems to think that it's primary function is to establish a democracy in
> cyberspace (with DNS concerns being so far down on their list of
priorities
> that it's barely a blip on their radar).
>
> Having watched these antics for over a year, and having watched the same
set
> of participants in the earlier IDNO, I can attest to the fact that before
> long we will find ourselves dealing with yet another glorified pissing
> contest between long-time adversaries (each hoping to become king of this
> ever-shrinking sandbox).
>
> It was nice meeting you in Rio, and I look forward to a time when we can
> return to a concerted discussion on matters pertaining to the DNS.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de