Re: [ga] Task Forces and Working Groups

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

On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 00:16:58 +0100, Thomas Roessler 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.
>
> 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.

This is a new "shortcut" approach.  However, it is not consensual.
In the past, working groups were common enough.  See, for example:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/WGs.html

>     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.

That's quite a generalisation.  There is a huge difference between the
non-commercial interests and those of the registries or registrars.  As well,
even the ICANN accredited registrars may well oppose VeriSign's proposals.
And the ccTLDs will have their own opinions.

>     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,

I don't think the noisy GA list is a "good place" for debate.

In the past debates have frequently been diverted.  You have already indicated
that you thought the WLS delete debate was derailed.

>     and the GA rep
>     to the TF should transport the arguments and results from such
>     discussions to the Task Force.
>
>     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 think you might mean "parallel" rather than "mirror".  However, there is
absolutely no reason why the GA shouldn't debate issues other than those for
which a Task Force has been established.

IOW, the GA could set up its own Working Groups ad hoc.

>  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.

That's what the "special purpose" mailing lists were made 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 yo7u. ;-)

Should the GA prefer a Working Group is up to them too.

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

Hedging and fudging. As Chair, don't take any "position".

> 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.

Meanwhile . . .

> 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.

As an internet body, most participant won't go to Accra.
BTW, can you or Alexander afford the travel expenses?

> 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,

Unless the membership prefers otherwise, of course.

> and that discussions on whether to form a working group or not are
> suspended.

Huh ???  You just said you would not take a "position".  In fact, you are
trying, very ineptly, to manipulate the GA to your way of thinking.

Which is that you don't want a Working Group.

> 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.

In other words, if the GA membership fights you hard enough, you will bow to
the inevitable and do what they want.

That's hardly off to a good start, Thomas.

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