RE: [wg-c] WG C Straw Pole vote

["Cohen, Tod" <Tod_Cohen@mpaa.org>]

I agree completely with Caroline and recommend that we take no further
votes.

Tod Cohen
MPAA

		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Chicoine, Caroline [mailto:chicoinc@PeperMartin.com]
		Sent:	Tuesday, August 31, 1999 4:57 PM
		To:	'Jonathan Weinberg'
		Cc:	'wg-c@dnso.org'; 'javier@auj.es'
		Subject:	RE: [wg-c] WG C Straw Pole vote

		I made absolutely no suggestion or request that WG C be
abolished, so
		you are correct that there is some confusion here.  

		I also wish to clarify my comment about taking no further
action,
		including voting.  I did not mean to suggest that the
discussion on the
		listserve should be stopped or postponed (as if that was
really
		possible!). And while I see no problem documenting the
PROCESS and
		STATEMENTS to date (whether in the form a memo or
otherwise), the Names
		Council specifically found that the STRUCTURE and the
COMPOSITION of WG
		C violates ICANN bylaws.  Therefore, I believe that
continuing to "try
		and find such consensus as we can find,wherever we can find
it" from a
		group (which includes me) to which the Names Council has
objected makes
		no sense.  Trying to draw conclusions from votes submitted
by such a
		group would likewise appear meaningless.  How can you say
"[t]here would
		be nothing wrong, further, with producing a report that says
we have
		consensus on X issues, and are presenting the competing
arguments on Y"
		when the Names Council has objected to the underlying
process by which
		such a report would be produced?

		Javier, what are your thoughts?


		-----Original Message-----
		From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:weinberg@mail.msen.com]
		Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 3:08 PM
		To: Chicoine, Caroline
		Cc: 'javier@aui.es'; 'wg-c@dnso.org'
		Subject: Re: [wg-c] WG C Straw Pole vote


			I think there's some confusion here.  The Names
Council has
		decided that we're not doing our job, and has asked Working
Group D to
		come up with ways in which Javier and I might adjust our
structure.  The
		NC has made absolutely no suggestion, though, that we be
abolished.
		Nor,
		for that matter, does *anyone* in Working Group D seem to
think that, or
		that our membership should be restricted.  To the extent
that WG-D comes
		up with proposals that will allow us more efficiently to do
our job,
		that's a good thing -- in any event, we're still in
business.[*]

			I think Javier's suggestion that we work on an
options memo is a
		good one.  I've suggested before, as have others, that if we
can't reach
		consensus then such a memo will be the best we can do.  As
Siegfried has
		urged, such a memo should not only list the different
possible courses
		of
		action, but also explain the arguments set forward in favor
of each.

			I also think, though, that while we are proceeding
with that
		process we should continue to try and find such consensus as
we can
		find,
		wherever we can find it.  (There would be nothing wrong,
further, with
		producing a report that says we have consensus on X issues,
and are
		presenting the competing arguments on Y.)  I'll post a
separate note,
		later today, working towards that goal on "how many, how
fast."  As for
		the straw poll votes, they are not an attempt to count heads
and thereby
		determine the position of the group, on a "majority wins"
basis.  Their
		results have no official status.  Rather, they're a tool we
can use to
		try
		to figure out where we may be able to find consensus.
There's no reason
		not to continue doing that.  Indeed, I think it would be an
abdication
		of
		our duty if we were to sit back and twiddle our thumbs for
two weeks,
		hoping for WG-D to come up with a magic bullet, rather than
continuing
		to
		work.

		--------------

		[*] It would be folly, further, for the NC to abolish this
WG or to try
		to
		replace it with some hand-picked committee.  We've had a
hard time
		getting
		results because we're charged with making proposals
regarding a really
		hard set of issues, on which people tend to strongly
disagree; the only
		way to reach consensus quickly on these issues is to exclude
one or more
		of the contending camps from the debate.  As ICANN and the
DNSO strive
		to
		prove their legitimacy, in the face of attacks from Herndon
and Capitol
		Hill, the *last* thing it would make sense to do would be to
try to 
		squelch raucous debate or inconvenient views.

		Jon


		Jonathan Weinberg
		co-chair, WG-C
		weinberg@msen.com


		On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, Chicoine, Caroline wrote:

		> Javier, if I recall correctly, the NC passed  the
following motion in
		> Santiago:
		> 
		> "NC declares that the current structure and composition of
WGC is
		> contrary to Article VI(b) Section 2b 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 WGD within two weeks to
povide the NC
		with
		> interim measures to allow WGC chairs to restructure the
working group
		in
		> a way that allows it to perform its functions."
		> 
		> Given this mandate, I believe that no further "voting" can
take place,
		> since the results will be the result of a WG which has
been found not
		to
		> be in compliance with ICANN bylaws.  As a result, I am
requesting that
		> any further action, including "voting", be put on hold
until the
		interim
		> measures are developed.  IMHU, we all could use a two week
break to
		step
		> back, cool off and reflect on the issues at hand.
		> 
		> Please advise.
		> 
		> 
		> 


		Jonathan Weinberg
		weinberg@msen.com