[ncdnhc-discuss] Proposed Resolution

[Dave Crocker]

At 11:57 AM 10/3/2002 -0400, Harold J. Feld wrote:
>>What is the record of their trying to?  In other words, where are these 
>>folks?  This activity has been going on for a long time.  Why have they 
>>not been heard from more generally?
>I would invite you to peruse the archives for folks who have bothered to 
>explain why they
>
>drop off the list.  Or scan the record of unsibscribes.

Thanks Harold, but that is a sufficiently open-ended, fuzzy suggestion that 
it moves the real burden to the wrong place.

YOU are claiming there is a need.  Hence it is YOUR burden to substantiate 
the claim.  It is not my -- or anyone else's -- burden to wander through 
extensive archives in the off-chance that we will happen to come across the 
messages you claim are there.

As you know, I've been reading the messages of this constituency from its 
inception.  I have no sense of any serious basis for claiming that there is 
a silent mass of potential participants.  Quite the 
opposite.  Participation in the EXISTING constituency has been minimal at 
best.  That fact argues very much against the claim that there is need for 
more constituencies of this type.


>In fact, most people who get sick of this just leave.  Few genuienly
>productive people who get tired of the process bother to explain.

And how will this get better by having more constituencies with more 
process bother?


>>Self-organizing requires self-action.  It does not require a resolution 
>>to give it permission.  Why have these folks made no visible effort so far?
>
>Those who would wish to self-organize must first understand that the 
>efforts are welcomed and that they have a chance of success.  The one 
>substantial effort to form a new consticuency after the establishment of 
>the current set met with failure.

It was a noisy effort, but not a substantial one.  Not substantial in 
numbers and not substantial in... substance.  And it was overwhelmed by its 
really nasty management flaws.


>   Why or how is not relevant

If you are going to claim that it represents something significant, then 
the why and how are important as a basis for realizing that it does NOT 
represent something significant.


>I will add that one of the hardest issues of outreach is how to get people 
>who are not here interested.  An invitation extended by the NC may well 
>persuade like-minded noncommercials to self-organize, where the generic 
>possibility under the ICANN bylaws does not.
>
>Let me reverse the question: what is the reason for opposing the motion?

Every time someone suggests taking an action and then is unable to justify 
taking it, they try to turn the burden around onto others.  That is, they 
take the position that a mere suggestion should be approved unless someone 
provides convincing arguments against.

In fact, actions should be taken for affirmative reasons.  There needs to 
be a serious justification for taking the action, if you want the action to 
be meaningful.

You need a basis that goes beyond theory and ideals.  If you are going to 
claim that some action is going to have some effect, then you need to 
provide a basis for that claim.  It is YOUR burden to provide that 
basis.  Actions should not be taken merely because someone suggests the 
action.  There are an infinite number of actions one might take.  Choosing 
ones that stand a good chance of being effective requires more than the 
whim of suggestion.


>   By your own objections, the motion is merely superfluous in that it 
> reiterates opportunities already available under the bylaws.  Since such 
> reiteration does no harm, and may do good, why oppose it?

It is interesting that you view my asking questions about the basis for the 
resolution to be opposition.


>>Who else has heard these complaints.  It seems unlikely that any issue, 
>>that is substantial enough to warrant solution by forming a constituency, 
>>is going to be expressed to only one person.
>
>Because, almost definitionally, those non-profits who do not think it 
>worthwhile to participate here are unknown to you
...
>   Nor is there any reason why disatisfied parties should seek you out.
>By contrast, MAP works with numerous non-profits in the area of telecom 
>policy, and I am a Names Council rep and known

ahh.  you claim special insight.  after all these years, with all the 
publicity surrounding ICANN, you have received enough comments to indicate 
the need for a constituency, although the rest of us have not seen those 
comments.

ok.  then you can easily cite the organizations that have contacted you, so 
that the rest of us have access to this insight.

By the way, whatever the limitations and statistical aspects of the current 
constituency are, why do you think that more constituencies of this type 
will be productive, when this existing constituency is not?  It cannot 
handle its fees and it has been unmanaged for quite some time now, strongly 
suggesting a lack of sufficient energy to get its work done.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:dave at tribalwise.com>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850