<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Thanks for this
Tapani! I think a timeout is a great idea. We have holidays
coming up next week, lets enjoy them! May I point out once
again that we do need to schedule a meeting/call of the NCSG
prior to the next council meeting on April 20 though....</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">cheers Stephanie</font></font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2017-04-07 03:40, Tapani Tarvainen
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:20170407074014.j73rtxnr3ue75xcd@tarvainen.info"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Replying to selected points from several messages inline.
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 03:54:01PM -0400, Stephanie Perrin (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>) wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">This is not a case of washing dirty laundry in my view.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
My apologies for poor choice of words and inappropriate accusatory tone.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">You recused yourself from this process Tapani, you have not been subject to
the chaos that ensued.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Yes. I assume you don't mean the chaos resulted from my recusal, but
perhaps that was indeed the case - perhaps I could have prevented it,
perhaps it was my fault. Perhaps I should not have recused myself, but
at the time I felt I couldn't do anything else. Or maybe I just took
the easy way out. In any case I must accept my guilt, that the failure
of the process was in part my fault, too.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Perhaps we should just wait for a week or two until things calm down
a bit to investigate how we can select our third member of the
committee.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
A timeout at this point sounds like a good idea.
On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:50:36PM -0400, avri doria (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>) wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">what was flawed was the lack of trust and the behavior of some
individuals. And no process is going to account for that. If ICANN
has taught me anything is that any process can be worked around or
warped if the intent to do so is there.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Yes.
The rough consensus rule of PC decision-making, in effect a
supermajority requirement, will inevitably lead to deadlocks and "game
of chicken" situations when opinions are polarized and passionate,
and there's no obvious "nuclear option" to break such deadlocks.
That being the case it will be up to the negotiating skills of the
participants and chair, ability to manage interpersonal conflicts and
"personal chemistry" issues and get past them to get decisions made.
And sometimes that can be really hard.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">You can also send the results of any process to the EC for confirmation,
as they are oversight for the PC and the NCSG charter allows for the
membership to challenge any EC decision. We have a set of accountability
mechanisms that should be used before jumping into process design.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
That is a very good point.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Having said that, I wish you all the best in developing a process that
cannot be thwarted by ill will and mistrust.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
While that is obviously impossible, some processes are more robust
than others, and we might be able to come up with some partial
solutions that would make decision-making easier in the future.
But I don't think we should try to come up with a radically new
process that would solve everything.
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 12:58:32PM +0900, Rafik Dammak (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>) wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I cannot accept to be appointed to SSC due to the circumstances and I am
more than keen to withdraw my candidature and restart the process
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
At this point it is indeed clear we must do that.
But there's no rush:
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 12:32:46AM -0400, avri doria (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>) wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I might add that I see no problem with continuing for a while with just
2 members in the SSC. That is one of the advantages of the SSC
requiring full consensus.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Yes. The only (trivial) problem is that it's a bit embarrassing
that after we insisted on having three slots we can't fill them all.
But I guess people are already used to NCSG behaving... oddly at times.
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 09:06:52AM +0200, William Drake (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wjdrake@gmail.com">wjdrake@gmail.com</a>) wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I’d let the SSC get on with its business with the two solid reps
you’ve chosen. If people feel the universe absolutely requires us to
have three, I'd give it a good rest and focus on other work to
rebuild normality before trying.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Agreed.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">IMO the only significant procedural flaw concerned transparency.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Yes. And that is also one thing we can and should be able to agree
about before trying again.
I note in passing that the recordings of the PC subgroup debating
this have not been published. They might help us understand what
went wrong.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">As for all the hyper-heated verbiage I’ve read in the past couple
days, wow, yikes, holy cow, etc.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Agreed on that, too. :-)
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Good luck to us all,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Indeed.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>