MoU discussion tactics (Re: Short Sighted and Unauthoritive)

["andi payn" <payn@null.net>]

Me:
>> I personally think it's a good thing that they're taking and acting on
>> comments and evolving their proposals. From IAHC draft to gtld-MoU to
>> CORE-MoU (where these overlap--which is a sizeable area) there have been
>> notable improvements, and I comment the MoU organizations for this.

Jeff:
>  I think you mean COMMEND, not comment here, but none the less I
>aslo feel the same way.  My concern and problem is it could easly
>be so much better NOW rather than later.  I am not sure we have
>time for LATER, as the drafters ans supporters of the MoU seem
>to believe and have stated on several occasions.  In addition,
>their Fee of $10k is to high, and centralized control of
>gTLD's will never happen or be excepted WORLD WIDE.

First of all, yes, you're right about my type. Second, I agree with you
here. I think the problem is that the MoU and eDNS contigents, who make the
vast majority of the posts on most of the lists (or did until the DOC's
request for comments shook things up a bit--now it's probably just a simple
majority) are trying to phrase the debate in simple terms of MoU: absolute
saviors of the Internet or Evil Incarnate. The reality, as I see it, is that
they set up a bad system, but they are honestly trying to work within it to
better the end result.

So there are really three questions:

The first is whether they are really trying to be honest and open in
discussions at this point. I think they're becoming more responsive as time
goes by, if not necessarily open (they take outside suggestions and actually
act on them, but they don't necessarily let outsiders see the discussion
process). They're being more open with their processes and interim results
than the eDNS and other coalitions, but much less open with their opinions
along the way. I wouldn't say they're doing a great job in this area, but I
don't think they deserve the kind of criticism they're getting here.

The second question is, if it doesn't work--or if it does work and turns out
to be terrible--where does the blame lie? I think here is where the MoU
contingent deserves the criticism. The way in which the initial creation of
the IAHC and the initial discussions were handled is what led to the
original IAHC draft, which created the structure that the MoU contingent
(being pretty much the same people who started the whole process) are trying
to work within. As I've said numerous times, based on the way the system is
set up, and the rate at which they're fixing the problems in their system, I
think they're going to get there, but it'll be much too late when they do,
and their system will have either become a footnote in history or a major
problem for the Internet.

The third question is, simply, will it work? And I think I just answered
that above.

[Re: The iPOC members' use of "non-authoritative" .sigs on every letter]

Me:
>> OK, that's fine, but when you are speaking authoritatively, can you
please
>> somehow let us know? You don't have to do anything as elaborate as the
Pope
>> when he wants to speak infallibly; I'm sure you can think of something
>> simpler.

Jeff:
>  I wonder.

I guess what I'm hoping for is some means by which they can distinguish
between personal feelings, semi-official insider opinions, and official
proclamations. The current way they're conducting themselves leaves only the
two extremes. They're so afraid of their personal feelings accidentally
being construed as in any way authoritative that they won't say anything
authoritatively unless everyone involved has signed on... The IRS managed to
find a way to give semi-official answers, advice, and information that's
right somewhere between 75%-95% of the time (depending on which survey you
look at), and I'm sure that the iPOC could come up with something at least
that good.

That being said, the gtld-MoU FAQ is one example of something intermediate,
and I'd like to see some more information of that sort, both in general and,
in particular, in response to particular questions about the system. FAQs
are supposed to be answers to frequently-asked questions so that people
don't keep asking them; that implies that someone will still be answering
the less-frequently-asked questions.