[wg-c-1] Re: [wg-c] WG Chairs

["Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>]

Dear Readers,

The appointment of a WG chair by the Names Council has brought into sharp 
relief a number of issues that will need to be addressed before we rip ourselves 
to shreds and end up accomplishing nothing.

First of all, I don't believe that Javier has any more authority over the WG than 
we choose to accord him.  That much said, I do think that the authority we 
should accord him should be non-zero; how that authority will compare to the 
authority garnered by the elected chair remains to be seen.  Let us not forget that 
if we indict the pNC and its actions as illegitimate, we raise the question by what 
authority we purport to act as a WG.  Once we have a mechanism in place for 
doing so, I intend to move for the ratification of Javier's having been selected as 
one of our chairs.

The real answers to these and many other questions is that the decisions we make 
will gain currency in proportion to how well we do our jobs.  If we continue to pick 
apart the basis for what we are doing, we will de-legitimate the whole process, as 
well as detract attention from the substantive work at hand.

So far as the general qualifications of POC/CORE to participate in the process, and 
the standing of the ICANN process vis-a-vis "Washington," I do have some insight.  
I am not a member of CORE or an employee of a member, nor have I been a member 
of the POC.  (I was a PAB member; so what?)  I have, however, attended CORE 
meetings, and I can attest to the bewildering variety of positions that have been taken 
by CORE members on a variety of issues.  CORE has had to expend considerable energy 
to arrive at an internal consensus, and nearly all of the members of CORE are successful 
businesses (or spinoffs of successful businesses) in their own right.  This is not the Internet 
of five years ago, wherein .edu address holders collectively ostracized those of us reaching 
the 'net through .com domains.

I was in the room when Becky Burr officially floated the "Newco" model of domain name 
governance.  We all recognized that there were going to be problems.  NSI (and others 
whose oxen were about to be gored) were going to fight tooth and nail; and a large number 
of paparazzi were expected to attack the legitimacy of the process on the ground that it was 
in illegitimate powergrab.  The first of these problems was supposed to be handled by the 
Dept. of Commerce (and, potentially, the Dept. of Justice), but it now appears that neither 
Commerce nor Justice are going to do anything dramatic until ICANN gets its act together.

The second problem is one which ICANN was expected to solve on its own.  WE ARE 
SUPPOSED TO BE PART OF THE SOLUTION.  This WG has come together on the basis 
of interest, much as IETF working groups coalesce.  Let's not worry about the top-down 
shenanigans of being told what to do.  ICANN cannot squash us like a bug because we 
operate in the open, in sight of the entire Internet community.  Squishing us for 
insubordination would so thoroughly de-legitimate ICANN that I do not for a moment 
believe that ICANN would do it:  that is, so long as we do our job.

If, on the other hand, we degenerate into a council of netgods, challenging every step 
ICANN takes toward organizing a legitimate method of Internet governance, then we 
will be an embarrassment to ICANN and to Becky Burr, and the survival of the NewCo 
model is in doubt.

This would be a really bad outcome.  It would lead to Congressional involvement, which 
would mean that it will take years for a solution to be found, and the "solution" will be 
driven by thinking such as "The Internet thing is an American invention, and we're 
a-keepin' it."

The time has come for us to adopt an authoritative decisionmaking mechanism.  
I'm going to posit the following approach:

(1) Suggestions of consensus may be made by the Reporter with the concurrence 
of either Chair, or by both Chairs concurrently, or by any five members of the WG.  
The suggester is responsible for expressing the topic of the suggested consensus in 
writing, and e-mailing the expression to the Reporter, who will assign the proposal a 
control number and post it under the topic "Consensus Call #XXX."  Messages posted 
to the list with this topic (or a confusingly similar topic) other than by the Reporter will be 
deleted, and persistent offenders are subject to suspension of authority to write to the 
list.

(2) Such suggestions will be open to comment for a period of ten calendar days.  Members 
of the WG, in commenting on the suggestion, should express at the outset whether they do 
or do not concur that consensus exists.

(3) At the close of the comment period, if more than three members of the WG express the 
belief that consensus does not exist, or if the belief that consensus exists is not more than 
twice as prevalent as the belief that it does not exist, then the Suggester(s) shall either 
re-submit their suggestion of consensus (to take into account comments from the WG) 
or request a votebot.  If a votebot is resorted to, then the activation of the votebot will be
 publicized on the list by daily postings under the topic "Consensus Call #XXX - Votebot."  
Votebots shall be open for not less than one calendar week.  If the result of the votebot 
indicates that the suggestion is supported by not less than 60% of the WG members voting, 
then the suggestion shall be deemed to have been adopted.  Once adopted, suggestions 
of consensus shall be reconsidered upon concurrence of 60% of the membership of the 
WG.

(4) Elections (of chairs or other officers) shall be by simple majority.

Kevin J. Connolly

<As usual, please disregard the silly trailer>
**********************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
**********************************************************************