Re: [ga] Working Groups

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

These are great points and counter points,

I think that if we work toward a new model using our relevant best practices
along with models used
for the purposes of the NC then we come to a fine example.  But I see that we
have come to some common ground to influence our WG with a more technically
oriented set of working parameters.

And in fact these issues ask both technical and public policy questions.

Who among us can do the job over the next month.  The abuse is great and the
effort Herculean.

Let us begin to work on questions we want answered by the registry.

Eric

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 07:02:03PM -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
> > > What sort of power do you expect the WG to have over the SOs for example?
> >
> > We're talking a bit at cross purposes here. Let me try to clarify.
> >
> > 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.
>
> IETF WGs are an excellent model for what the GA *could* be doing, but
> not, I think, for what you think the GA *should* be doing: IETF WGs are
> fundamentally *document-producing systems*, not *decision systems*.
>
> This is an absolutely fundamental distinction.  The documents that the
> IETF produces, as a general rule, have absolutely no binding effect on
> anyone; you (or a company) can follow an RFC or not, as you please.
> Basically, the IETF produces documents, and whether they have any effect
> is completely dependent on how the public reacts to them.  In fact, the
> IETF is perfectly capable of producing incompatible, competing protocols
> for doing the same basic function.
>
> If you transfer that model to the DNSO, then there would be great
> freedom to form working groups on any topic relevant to the DNSO, but
> the documents that those WGs produced would not be binding on anyone.
> You could form one WG to define and clarify a particular view of how
> things should be done; and I could from a second, competing WG to
> explain the same thing.  The WGs could each produce documents that were
> the consensus of their respective WGs, but there would be absolutely no
> presumption that the process developed any policy that was in any way
> binding on ICANN or anyone else.
>
> [...]
>
> > 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).
>
> If you go back over the archives of WG "D" (the WG on WGs), I think it
> was (one of the userful things the IETF does is require mnenomics for
> WGs -- much better than the nonsense of using single letter names), you
> will find proposals for exactly this kind of stuff.
>
> >
> > Restrict the Names Council and ICANN Board from rewriting WG proposals.
> > 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.
>
> You are very confused about the IETF, I'm afraid.
>
> > 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.
> >
> > Scrap the notion of constituencies. Let them join the Working Groups.
>
> You know the saying about those who don't know history are condemned to
> repeat it?  You are proposing that we repeat history.  We tried open
> WGs and they don't work for the purpose you imagine they do.
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> 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

--
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