Re: [ga] Working Groups

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 19:02:03 -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:

> We're talking a bit at cross purposes here. Let me try to clarify.

Thank you, Sandy, I understand you now.

> What I'm trying to do is advocate a model more like (my understanding of)
> the way the IETF does things rather than the current way ICANN does them.

Agreed.  I prefer that model too.  That's the direction I have been trying to
move towards but within a framework acceptable to the GA and the NC.

> I think this is urgently necessary because the current ICANN system does not
> appear to be working well, and the IETF system is the only method that has
> ever been demonstrated to work for designing and running an Internet.

Well said.  The problem is how to implement it.

> I admit I'm not at all certain how the IETF system should be modified to
> suit ICANN's quite different role, or indeed that it can survive attempts
> at such modifications. As I see it, the first attempt gave us the current
> ICANN structure, and is obviously failing. Time to move back toward the
> IETF model, then perhaps cautiusly try other modifications.

Sure, but at least we must first define the question and you have created a
reasonable framework for analysis.  Thank you.

> So, in that context, I'm saying I'd like to see roles much more like the
> IETF system of Working Groups overseen by Area Directors and the IESG
> (Internet Engineering Steering Committee).

Assuming we implement Working Groups, these can be done at one of three levels
viz within ICANN as a whole, within the DNSO (under the NC) or within the GA
itself.

We can more-or-less set up what we want within the GA and that's what I have
been trying to do.  Perhaps the NC could be convinced iff the GA had strong
consensus.

But the ICANN level (including other SOs) is more intractable.  Hence a number
of participants have tried to address the ICANN structure.

> Restrict the Names Council and ICANN Board from rewriting WG proposals.

That's perhaps possible in the light of your comments below.

> They can reject a proposal, or send it back to the WG for a rewrite, but
> not rewrite it themselves. On overall policy matters, they might generate
> pronouncements like the IESG/IAB RFC 1984. However, the basic model is
> that decisions are made by Working Groups.

Perhaps we should not use the word "decisions" in this context, as it will
imply that ICANN is ceding control.  What does the IETF call them, RFCs or
Drafts?

What about "determinations" or something similar?

> Scrap the idea that the Names Council should ever appoint a closed Task
> Force rather than setting up an open Working Group to deal with a problem.

Absolutely agree.  It must be open.

> Scrap the notion of constituencies. Let them join the Working Groups.

Yes, but that's where the power lies and it's hard to persuade them to
voluntarily relinquish their control over the NC.   As a compromise we could
leave the constituencies and allow them to participate in the Working Groups.
Eventually there would be a shift in the balance of power.

So the real question is (a) what level (ICANN, SO or GA) and (b) how do we
generate consensus to achieve your proposal.

My way was to implement Working Groups within the GA itself but I would prefer
to move up a level.  The present "closed" NC Task Forces should not be
supported, imo.

In fact, I think we are wrong to participate in voting a representative.
That's just the NC throwing us some scraps to keep us happy.

I also think that the methodology to determine "terms of reference" needs to
be very carefully considered as this happens to be a key pressure point.  The
current NC Task Forces have had their agenda set by Phillip Sheppard (either
in his role as Chair of the Names Council or in his role on the Task Force
itself).

Thanks for the clarification :-)

Best regards
Patrick Corliss




--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html