[council] Re: WGD Report

[Bret Fausett <fausett@lextext.com>]

Thanks for the question. This did come up, and we discussed it extensively.
The question of voting first arose in the context of 'what is consensus
within a working group' and 'how is it determined.' Working Groups members
were somewhat skeptical about allowing a working group chair to pronounce
"consensus" simply on the basis of reading the comments on the list. There
was also concern that "silence" not be viewed as assent. The members of the
Working Group believed we would get a more accurate sense of the members'
views by voting in a formal manner.

The real problem you raise though is what the Working Group vote is meant to
signify and whether the results of a working group process will be slanted
by the nature of the membership. First, it will remain the Names Council's
obligation to determine whether a consensus of the DNSO community exists
(the Bylaws require this, Article VI-B, Section 2), so a Working Group vote
is not intended to be a replacement for that.

Second, you'll see in the Working Group D report that two of the required
elements are intended to ensure that the working group's composition doesn't
skew the results:

> * Record of Outreach
>      A record of affirmative outreach to any segment
>      of the Internet community that might be affected
>      by the proposed policy.
>
> * Community/Constituency Impact Reviews
>      A summary and analysis of evidence as to how the
>      impacted groups (not just the Working Group
>      members) feel about the proposed policy.

So to use your example of a "trademark heavy" working group. In such a
group, the members would still have to affirmatively seek out the views of
other groups, even those underrepresented groups who might have differing
views. It would be the obligation of the Working Group to ensure that those
views were fairly represented in the report. The Names Council should look
skeptically on reports that do not include those elements, and it should
take seriously complaints that the Working Group misrepresented submitted
comments in a final report.

When it works best, a Working Group should vote on whether a report
accurately reflects all views. That's different, I think, than a working
group voting the individual preferences of its members.

So imagine that a working group is tasked with evaluating the UDRP. The
final vote should not be "We, the members of the Working Group, by a vote of
37-5, believe that the UDRP should be amended in the following three
ways..." Rather, the final vote should look like this: "We, the members of
the Working Group, by a vote of 37-5, believe that the attached report
accurately summarizes the views of all interested parties and agree that the
consensus of those interested parties, as reflected in the report, is that
the UDRP should be amended in the following three ways..."

That's no guarantee that a Working Group stacked with representatives of one
point of view won't try to skew the results in their favor. But, if Working
Group D's recommendations are followed, the members of the Names Council
should have the tools necessary to discern any bias and respond
appropriately.

You should expect a report that documents the community outreach and
documents the views of the various constituencies. If you see a discrepancy
among the vote, the recommendation, and the underlying documentation, or
fail to receive the required documentation, those would be independent
reasons, I believe, for rejecting the report. And knowing that the Names
Council will scrutinize the report and vote in this way should keep the
Working Group and its Chair honest.

In theory, that's the way it should work. But I'd very much like to see it
tested in practice in the next Working Group chartered by the Names Council.
(Since the rules are new, you also might want someone from Working Group D
to act as a kind of 'parliamentarian' to ensure they are understood and
followed.)

Let me know if you have additional questions or concerns.

    -- Bret


Chicoine, Caroline G. wrote:
> Bret, I was taking a quick look at the WGD report this weekend and just have
> one thought/question.  The report talks about voting, and one of my concerns
> about WGs is that if enough people from one interest group join the WG, they
> can sway any vote.  Even without a vote, if the WG is say "trademark heavy",
> does the fact that the WG concludes "A" really mean that it A is a consensus
> position.  I did not see a mechanism for addressing this concern and was
> wondering whether it came up in your discussion in WGD and what your
> thoughts are on it.
> 
> Caroline G. Chicoine
> Thompson Coburn LLP
> One Firstar Plaza
> St. Louis, MO.  63101
> (314) 552-6499
> (314) 552-7499 (fax)
> cchicoine@thompsoncoburn.com
> 
>