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

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

	Amadeu's motion -- which the NC passed -- states that Working
Group C currently is not able "to perform its functions."  Put another
way, WG-C's "current structure and composition" is "not adequate to carry
out the substantive work of the DNSO."  For that reason, WG-C's current
structure and composition is contrary to the by-laws.  At the NC meeting,
when queried, Amadeu explained the sorts of "concrete solutions" WG-D
might suggest that would be adequate to address the problems he saw in
WG-C: "I was thinking about things like limiting the number of comments
per day, limiting the number of members, having a discussion list separate
from that, making a clear RFC proposal, things like that."

	What all this indicates is that we are falling down, in the eyes
of the NC, because we haven't been able to make adequate progress towards
producing a report.  I agree that that's a serious failing (although my
personal view is that it's largely due to the fact that the questions
we're charged with answering are so difficult).  But the answer, surely,
is not for us to play dead for two weeks while we wait for WG-D to make
suggestions as to how we can operate more effectively.  The answer is to
try to make progress.

	The gist of the NC's complaint, as set out in the text of the
motion and Amadeu's explanation, is that we're failing because we're not
making progress.  I think Javier is right that we should start preparing a
memo that sets out our various views, and the arguments in each direction,
so that even if we make no further progress towards consensus we can still
present the DNSO with a clear set of options.  But it's neither
illegitimate, nor inconsistent with the NC motion, for us at the same time
to try and make some progress towards consensus.  Had we done more of that
sooner, the NC wouldn't have needed to pass the motion at all.

Jon


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


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

> 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