Process geeks was Re: Status of the charter vote

[Avri Doria]

hi,

> We are all "process geeks" here, aren't we? 


Some people are academic and care about finding the right solution to the problem that is the focus of their life's research.  Some are members of advocacy groups that just want to solve the individual problem their advocacy is directed toward.  They are willing to view practice as a necessary evil if they are really forced to.  But there really are more important things for them to think and talk about.

To the process geek, in addition to whatever else we care about, and it can vary all over the map, we also find satisfaction getting the process right.  It may be because we harbor secret structuralist leanings, or just because of experience we have decided that if the process doesn't work nothing does.  So we spend time dotting t's and crossing i's and putting typos and obscure phrases in documents - and are even happy to do it - because we believe that an SG that can run without thinking about its processes except for a periodic checkup is a SG that can get some real work done.

> Bottom line, we are on the same page in encouraging everyone to participate.

indeed.  the more participation the better - thee is a whole ICANN that desperately needs our participation.

a.


On 26 May 2010, at 14:57, Dan Krimm wrote:

> Point taken.
> 
> Yet, isn't the whole point of being involved in a *governance*
> organization to be "a process geek"?
> 
> ICANN may be focused on policies of a technical nature, but it is not a
> technical organization.  It is a political organization, and the
> ramifications of these technical policies (and bureaucratic processes)
> reach far beyond mere technology, because this is about technology with
> fundamental effects on basic liberties and societal capabilities.
> 
> We are all "process geeks" here, aren't we?  Because governance is *all*
> about process, and ICANN is all about governance.  And in any case, this
> charter vote is not just some run-of-the-mill garden-variety process
> matter.  These "constitutional" matters don't come around very often, and
> when they do they affect everything else that the organization does.
> 
> Bottom line, we are on the same page in encouraging everyone to participate.
> 
> If you do not recall receiving an email message with a link to your
> personal ballot, I would suggest you just go ahead and immediately request
> a duplicate explicitly (and the administrator can confirm separately that
> it went out, and what the subject header is and what the sending address
> is).
> 
> You can't vote twice in the system, so duplicate messages with your
> personalized ballot-link pose no logistical problem.
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> -- 
> Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and
> do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 11:36 am, Avri Doria wrote:
>> On 26 May 2010, at 14:12, Dan Krimm wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> If greatly qualified people can't even find the time to participate in
>>> this vote, what expectation do we have that they would be able to
>>> contribute in any other way in the future?
>> 
>> 
>> I do not think this follows.
>> 
>> Very often people are tightly focused on the issue that is important to
>> them and this process stuff just doesn't catch their attention.
>> 
>> Sure to process geeks like me this is both important and interesting, but
>> I understand how others could find it so boring and dreary that they
>> really need a lot of encouragement to finally say, 'oh, ok, how do i
>> vote".
>> 
>> So if you happen to be one of those people, I understand.  And if you
>> happen to read this message and haven't voted yet please do - you should
>> have received a ballot - please make sure it isn't in you filter folder.
>> 
>> And if you have voted thanks.
>> 
>> a.