Re: [ga] Working Groups

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Thank you for this refreshing and clarifying insight. Jefsey


On 02:23 14/01/02, Kent Crispin said:
>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