Re: [ga] Task Forces and Working Groups

[Abel Wisman <abel@able-towers.com>]

As promised and again, comments between the lines;

On Monday 14 January 2002 11:16 pm, you wrote:
> Since there have been some discussions recently on starting a
> Working Group on the deleted domains issue, a word on how we are
> planning to handle such requests may seem in order.

we being chair and co-chair one assumes, since the general opinion looked 
clear but is under a vote, so it would be more prudent to await the outcome 
of that IMO(sorry humble i have never been)

> Basically, two situations can occur:

>  1. Some topic is being discussed all over the DNSO, and
>     constituencies want to achieve some consensus.  The current
>     method of approaching this is that the Names Council starts a
>     Task Force.  If constituencies agree on this, there's not much
>     the GA can do about it - in particular, we can't draw the
>     constituencies to some open working group against their own will.

The current method is not working as a large part of the GA would like that, 
more clarity can be gotten from the vote that is under way.

>     In such Task Forces, the GA will be represented, and - as we said
>     in our "thank you" posting - we'll ask the GA representative to
>     the Task Force to regularly report on the happenings in that TF
>     to the main GA list.  If someone feels a need to provide further
>     input on the topic of the particular TF (or to discuss it), the
>     GA list wil be a good place for such discussions, and the GA rep
>     to the TF should transport the arguments and results from such
>     discussions to the Task Force.

I fail to see that we have to ask a representative to let us know "now and 
then" how they are doing in what is supposed to be representing the GA.
I would say that they with regularity post feedback to the GA, and seek the 
GA's opinion on matters they are working on, if such does not work that way 
then it is obvious we have choosen the wrong representative.
I would say that a "once a week" update is adequate adn is also healthy for 
the representative to keep in touch with the opinion of the GA whom he/she 
represents.

>     If required by the traffic generated, the GA could easily set up
>     a "separate mirror WG" on that topic, which accompanies the Names
>     Council task force.

I bellieve it was you who opposed this idea where it concerned the WLS or the 
DELETE, now you are saying that it is easy to set such up ? what status would 
those lists have ?

>  2. Some topic may be intensively debated on the GA list itself.
>     There's nothing wrong about this, and we'd generally like to ask
>     those who discuss it to just keep their discussions on the GA
>     list.  After all, that's what the list was made for.

Everybody wamrs up to certain topics better then others, not only is that a 
natural thing, it is also a matter f not being able to fundamentally know 
all, hence interest will be focussed, this is one of the pro WG statements, 
bring out the best in people on this list, draw upon specialisms, these will 
drown on the GA as was noticed on the WLS topic.
The GA would be more able ot reach consensus with WG's at will in place, WGs 
make drafts the GA discusses, finetunes them, the WG redrafts and the GA 
votes, much the same as the taskforces do now, only this time in order to 
achieve consensus in the GA and to show hte NC that the GA is a working 
constituency, with results to show for.

>     If too much traffic is generated, such discussions can and should
>     be moved off the main GA list, and we'd certainly like to help
>     you to create such a list.  Whether you call it a special
>     interest mailing list or a "DNSO GA WG" is up to you. ;-)

To mich traffic is hardly possible with the max postings, the total number of 
possible postings on this list in 24 hours don't even come close what my 
mailservers do in 30 minutes. 
Oh you meant it is hard to follow, ah yeah that is another reason why a WG 
structure was proposed.
Your smile at the end of that alinea comes close to contempt for the idea, 
not really a good start  to show contempt for a large part of the 
constituency that thinks different on the subject. However the call for such 
a list has been made over some time now, and you opposed it, certainly as a 
WG, so why now can it be done, if not to ignore it further?

> Of course, all this says nothing about what position we take in the
> general Working-Group-vs-Task-Force controversy.

Your position is a know factor, I have only to read the previous allinea to 
make that clear. 
and there is no WG versus TF discussion nor is there a controversy, the two 
are alike but not the same, almost human.

> Frankly, we don't know which method is more efficient.  Both have
> their up- and downsides.  Maybe there's another model which is
> better than both.
>
Why not stick with the interest of the GA ? it is clear that the main 
discussion of late was that a large part of this constituency thinks that the 
WG way is perhaps a better way to do things, what stops us from being what we 
are? an able and free body trying to reach consensus on various topics, 
through as democratic and elaborate means as possible.

>
> For this reason, we'll try to organize some discussion on this for
> the GA's Accra physical meeting.  However, this is still in the most
> early planning and drafting stage, so we don't promise anything
> special yet - except that we are aware of the issue, and will try to
> get some clarification on it.

Why delay this discussion to the happy efw who have the time to visit Accra, 
the GA is this list, let's keep the topic here and socialize in Accra. Being 
aware of the issue seen to be an understatement since you took part actively 
in the discussions, why not simply continue them?
>
> Finally, how does this apply to the domain deletions issue?  For the
> moment, we'd ask that the discussion remains on the main GA list,
> and that discussions on whether to form a working group or not are
> suspended.  If extensive discussions on deletions continue, and if
> they become a problem for other discussions, we can still move them
> elsewhere.  As they say on Usenet: Show traffic, get group.

With this you simply wipe two votes brought before the GA by menbers of the 
GA , this is in my opinion not the task of a chair, nor is decreting rules, 
last time i heard the fuction of the chair was somewhat more representative 
and co-ordinating the efforts frlom the constituency, the GA speaks, the 
chair represents, dropping issues that have been discussed actively is not a 
reasonable act a chair worthy.
both discussions as the WLS (which is still as much alive as ever, even 
though you choose to ignore my postings on the topic) sould be held on list 
and in a workgroup, where the latter with no restrain on the number of 
postings can come to a proposal for the GA to reach consensus on or consensus 
-2 .

regards

abel wisman

-- 
Abel Wisman
office	+44-20 84 24 24 2 2
mobile +44-78 12 14 19 16

www.able-towers.com for all your hosting and co-location at affordable prices
www.url.org domainregistrations, there is no better
www.grid9.net bandwidth sales, for high-grade solutions
www.telesave.net for the best rates on long distance calls
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html