Dear all,
I have a rule I have long ago found good in situations like this:
always look for the most benevolent explanation for people's actions
and assume, or at least act as if you assumed even if you don't quite
believe it, the best consistent motivations behind their actions.
Even or indeed especially when someone seems to do something
deliberately to hurt you, look for alternative explanations,
other possible reasons, and if you still feel the need to
challenge them, do it politely, pointing out how their
actions could be misinterpreted, instead of jumping the gun
and directly accusing them of the worst possibility.
In the present case I don't know enough to judge what really
should have been done and where, I haven't had the time to
read all relevant discussions, so I'll only offer a few
general observations:
All objective criteria for selecting people for anything
are unavoidably somewhat arbitrary and will occasionally
lead to even blatantly bad results.
But even so they are useful, in particular when there's a degree
of mistrust in the air: it is easier to agree on such criteria
and less damaging to argue about them than directly about
people and their qualities.
And as Bill pointed out, the time to challenge criteria
is when the criteria are being discussed, not after they've
been applied with results you don't like.
Perhaps the criteria were more flexible than Ed apparently
thought - perhaps it would have been possible to get James
or Carlos chosen despite their attendance record. I don't know.
But perhaps Ed was right and trying to push for our own to the end
would in fact had resulted in an even worse outcome?
And even if you think that extremely unlikely, you should give
him the benefit of doubt and at most argue it was an error of
judgement.
Or if some of you think we should on general principles always push
for our own members even when it's unlikely to succeed and
may result in worse results at least in short term, fine:
that is a valid position and might even be a good rule in
the long term. But as far as I know we don't now have such a rule,
so we can't appeal to it now.
James, in particular: don't take this as directed against you.
It was a combination of miscommunication and bad timing and
perhaps hasty decisions, not a judgement on your abilities.
Nobody has argued that it wouldn't have been good to send you there,
only that it wasn't possible in this particular situation so
it was better to cut our losses so to speak.
Please don't be discouraged and keep up your good work.
One lesson to draw from this is one Bill already said:
it would be better to discuss such decisions more in advance.
But always that isn't possible, life tends to interfere
and time runs short, so let's try not to blame each other:
it rarely brings anything good.
And now, let's try to concentrate on our common goals and do what
we can with whatever means we have, remotely or otherwise.
Tapani
(still on the road using borrowed equipment and losing
network connectivity in a moment, so no more now.)
On Sep 20 10:15, James Gannon ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
> As this matter obviously concerns me in a number of ways to be honest I didn’t want to get involved in it, but there are some issues that I think I need to respond to.
>
> I have been an active participant in all aspects of the IANA transition from Day 1 of the transition, I have worked in and/or followed all 3 operational communities work and on the names side I have been active in both the CWG and CCWG. Unfortunately I have a day job that I need to complete in order to feed myself and my family, and as such given that most of the meetings that I have been unable to attend have been during my working hours please forgive me for not being able to maintain the seemingly required thresholds of meeting attendance figures that are required to qualify as an active participant.
>
> My work on PTI, Design Team L, the IANA Budget and other matters on the CWG with Matt, Robin and Avri, and on the IRP, Confidentiality Disclosure Framework, the AoC Incorporation, and helping guide our counsel to the NCSG goals on the CCWG have taken up 20-30 hours per week for the last number of months. While working on other matters such as the PPSAI PDP, the IAG on WHOIS Conflicts with National Laws and various NCSG positions this seemingly doesn’t count for anything because I haven’t been able to attend an arbitrary number of conference calls.
>
> If this is the response when an active participant asks for support then I think we have much to learn on how to engage and get members active in this community.
>
> With regards to my filing individual comments somehow being construed as me working on behalf of commercial interests, let me be blatantly clear as to my motivation for doing so.
> I had an opinion that the SMCM should be comprised of the Supporting Organisations of ICANN only and that the Advisory Committee's should not be granted voting roles, this was a position that I did not feel would gain traction within NCSG having had discussions with a number of members and participants so I filed my individual comments to reflect that position. I will note I also worked on the NCSG comments on the CCWG (Amongst many other comments I have worked on for the NCSG)
>
> If somehow my position as a proponent of non-commercial interests is in question please tell me so and I will submit my resignation from NCSG effective immediately if its members do not feel I am representative of their views.
>
> -James
>
> From: William Drake
> Date: Sunday 20 September 2015 09:16
> To: Milton Mueller, Edward Morris, James Gannon
> Cc: NCSG Members
> Subject: Re: A Response To Milton
>
> Gentlemen
>
> What we've got here is failure to communicate…obviously it’d have been desirable if your respective views had been shared and talked through among our CCWGites and fellow travelers, e.g. in the NCSG PC, before any external action was taken, but I recognize everyone is completely under the water with the press of the work + life stuff including health. Hopefully we can increase the coordination prior to LA and Dublin so we at least understand each others’ thinking better and maybe even find more bits of common ground.
>
> On Sep 20, 2015, at 8:26 AM, Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> I totally reject the proposition that attendance percentages are the only factor that should guide the decision. This is classic GNSO politics. Set up a completely arbitrary metric (as if someone who attends 83% of the meetings is better than someone who attends 60%) and pretend that it is objective when it is obvious such a metric will privilege business representatives who make this their full time job. Are there no other “objective measures?” How about who wrote the most words in their comment? That’s objective. How about who many other representatives from the same SG are able to attend? That’s objective. Why was attendance percentage elevated to this magical status?
>
> I understand the objection and if others agree this case should have been pressed with Johnathan Robinson. But it sounds like it wasn't so we have to deal with the parameters the chairs have set, objections after the fact don't matter.
>
> On Sep 20, 2015, at 2:51 AM, Edward Morris <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> My CCWG attendance has sunk to 64%, due largely to my recent hospitalization. Yet I believe other factors would have been weighed in my favour. I am the lead for a nascent WS2 group that, although currently in hibernation, we hope to re-activate very soon (https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Office+of+Ombudsman). I was on the Executive Team of the Legal Subteam ( https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/Legal+SubTeam ), am on Work Party 1 ( https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP1+--+Community+Empowerment ), Work Party 2 ( https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/WP2+--+Review+and+Redress ), various subteams of each, and am a member the Stress Test working party ( https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/ST-WP+--+Stress+Tests+Work+Party ). I was also a member of Work Area 1 ( https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51413856) and Work Area 4 (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51413864 ). I am the only CCWG non appointed Participant to have had a minority statement selected for publication in the current 2nd draft CCWG report ( https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=53783460 ) and my most recent public comment ( http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-ccwg-accountability-03aug15/pdfDIhYVAHMeR.pdf) has one major item unique to it that will be brought up for discussion in Los Angeles. I am also an incumbent member of the GNSO Council ( http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/gnso-council.htm ), the body choosing the grant recipient. I believe my fellow Councillors would have looked favourably upon my request had I chosen to apply.
>
> As Robin and Brett, two of our Members who will be in Los Angeles, are aware if I pass a medical exam on Tuesday and obtain flight clearance I will attend the Meeting in Los Angeles at my own expense. I very easily could have applied for the travel support and returned it if the exam does not go well but that would have been unprofessional and I don’t do things like that. It’s simply wrong. I don’t want ICANN to reserve funding for someone who is not 100% sure he or she can attend.
>
> Ed this is not right, you should not be going at your own expense if it’s going to mean dining at food banks etc. Please sort out your parameters and if you can go send an application to NCUC ASAP. In accordance with our travel policy, you would be eligible for support up to $1,000, which would at least cover much of your plane ticket, and you could sleep rough on the USC quad or something. I would strongly advocate to the NCUC EC that we offer you such support.
>
> James has applied for support for Dublin and received support for BA so his case is a little more difficult at least optically, but given the circumstances I at least would support making a similar accommodation. Our little piggy bank is precisely for this purpose, to get key people to crucial meetings. We can’t take it with us, so let’s use it.
>
> And in any event let’s take full advantage of the remote participation.
>
> Best
>
> Bill
|
