[council] [fwd] policy-making options (from: roessler@does-not-exist.org)

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

I'm resending this as requested in today's call.  

Some pros and cons for individual options can be found in the table 
at <http://does-not-exist.org/ga-structure/policy-making.html>.

Of course, orthogonal to this, you also have the question who should 
participate in policy-making, which is not addressed by these  
options.

-- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/



----- Forwarded message from Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org> -----

From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
To: council@dnso.org
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 00:41:31 +0200
Subject: policy-making options
Mail-Followup-To: council@dnso.org

I hope this is also helpful to the members of the council.

----- Forwarded message from Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>  -----

From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
To: ga@dnso.org
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 00:37:45 +0200
Subject: policy-making options
Mail-Followup-To: ga@dnso.org

In order to add a bit more structure to the discussion on 
policy-making, here are a couple of parameters by which 
policy-making can be "tuned", or by which different options may be 
characterized.  Note that "working group" and "task force" are 
mostly used interchangeably in what follows:

 - Composition of working group: Same for all topics at a given time 
   (<=> names council or board does everything itself); appointed by 
   council or board (strict task force model; committees as used by 
   board); appointed by stakeholder groups (loose task force model); 
   self-selected (working group model).
   
 - Communication with public while work is going on: Listen-only plus 
   behind-the-curtain discussions with groups perceived important 
   (board; board committees); active outreach (some of the current 
   task forces; counterexample: dot-org; it may be argued that 
   dot-org registrant representation was lacking; outreach should 
   include _exchange_ of views and arguments); outreach built into 
   self-selected membership (working group model).
   
   Additional options (orthogonal): Public archives of discussions; 
   dedicated comment periods.

 - Interaction with the board: Through intermediate body (DNSO 
   process via names council; may or may not have power to modify 
   input from WG); directly (board committees).

   Additional options (orthogonal to that):

   * Output may be considered binding/non-binding/almost-binding.
   * Board may interact with TF while work is going on.  Similar to 
     relationship between public and WG.

I'd like to hear what you think about these options.

One thing which should be kept in mind while thinking about these 
options is that different circles of stakeholders may imply the need 
for different mechanisms.  What is appropriate for 
consensus-building in the PSO concerning their policy area may be 
entirely inappropriate for the DNSO (or its successor), or for a 
ccSO.  Also, cross-SO discussions may require a process different 
from discussions within individual SOs.

-- 
Thomas Roessler                        <roessler@does-not-exist.org>

----- End forwarded message -----

----- End forwarded message -----