[NCSG-PC] SSC process and my status in NCSG PC

[Stephanie Perrin]

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....

cheers Stephanie


On 2017-04-07 03:40, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Replying to selected points from several messages inline.
>
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 03:54:01PM -0400, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>
>> This is not a case of washing dirty laundry in my view.
> My apologies for poor choice of words and inappropriate accusatory tone.
>
>> You recused yourself from this process Tapani, you have not been subject to
>> the chaos that ensued.
> 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.
>
>> 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.
> A timeout at this point sounds like a good idea.
>
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 11:50:36PM -0400, avri doria (avri at acm.org) wrote:
>
>> 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.
> 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.
>
>> 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.
> That is a very good point.
>
>> Having said that, I wish you all the best in developing a process that
>> cannot be thwarted by ill will and mistrust.
> 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 (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote:
>
>> 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
> 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 (avri at acm.org) wrote:
>
>> 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.
> 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 (wjdrake at gmail.com) wrote:
>
>> 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.
> Agreed.
>
>> IMO the only significant procedural flaw concerned transparency.
> 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.
>
>> As for all the hyper-heated verbiage I’ve read in the past couple
>> days, wow, yikes, holy cow, etc.
> Agreed on that, too. :-)
>
>> Good luck to us all,
> Indeed.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170407/8f8616df/attachment.htm>