[wg-c] Output of the WG

[Javier <javier@aui.es>]

>
> >Motion 3: NC declares that current structure and composition of WG-C is
> >contrary to Article VI(b) Section 2.b of ICANN bylaws in the sense that
> >it's not adequate to carry out the substantive work of the DNSO. In this
> >regard, the NC requires WG-D within two weeks to provide the names
> >council with interim measures to allow the working group C chairs to
> >restructure the working group in a way that allows it to perform its
> >functions.
> >
> >The details of what the consequences will be are still a mystery to me.
> >I hope Javier will speak to this soon.

The difficulty of finding consensus in WG C has become clear. Jon's efforts 
at polling opinions have clarified even more the differences of opinion 
within the group.

Also, the exchanges get off-topic very quickly, producing large amounts of 
e-mails that are of no interest in the search for consensus on the core 
topics of the working group, and scare off possible participants in these 
key issues. The result is that we are not being able to drive the 
discussion towards consensus building.

There have been some opinions expressed towards trying to create -as output 
of the WG- a document that lists and structures all the major opinions 
expressed in the WG, and passing them to the Names Council as the 
deliverable of this Working Group, without attempting consensus.

We now have to wait for the recommendations of WG D, but starting to 
produce such document does not sound like a bad idea, as it can be used for 
any type of work that we may want to accomplish in this working group, and 
could be handed as a deliverable if we do not get any further.

Javier